Flying the RV-3

[JonJay]

A gracious neighbor allowed me to use his 3 since I had never had the chance to fly one before. Pretty much flies like an RV.

I am only 5'10" but I have relatively long legs. I don't know how tall people like R.V. can even get in. Once in it was very comfortable and surprisingly roomy.

Taxiing the non-steerable tailwheel took a bit of play with throttle, rudder, and a bit of differential braking but I adjusted quickly and it handled well on the ground.

As you can imagine 150hp in a less than 800lb airplane flat gets off the ground. Climb out was very RV like and with the electric pitch prop set flat, it soars to the sky quickly at full power. Adjusted to cruise to 24/24, this particular 3 is still quite a bit slower than other RV's. Not sure why.

Control pressures feel about the same as my 6, slightly more sensitive in roll and perhaps a bit more than that in pitch, but not as much as I expected.
Stall's, again RV like. Things get mushy, a little shudder, and finally, if you work at it, a nice clean break. Virtually no loss of altitude in recovery. Slow flight was as predicted.

I was surprised with the lack of float on landing being such a light airplane. Landing attitude was intuitive and visibility out the side corner and the short gear made it very easy to know where the runway was. It pretty much stuck on landing and stayed there. It rolled out nicely and very short. I think the light weight has an advantage over other RV's. I could easily land the 3 in under 500ft in calm conditions.

While I am impressed with the 3, it flies and handles like my 6 when I am light, kind of what you expect from an RV. It is slightly less stable but still feels solid. The controls are slightly more sensitive.

With all of the hype about the 3 that has propogated this forum, perhaps I was expecting some mind altering event. It was a lot of fun but I won't be trading my 6 anytime soon.

I still had the RV grin when I parked the airplane as my neighbor joked; "You only have half of an RV grin. It's a 3, half of a 6".

Thanks to my neighbor for trusting me with his airplane and I enjoyed the experience. How could you not? It's an RV.

 

[luddite42]

I could easily land the 3 in under 500ft in calm conditions.

That claim is worthless without video. Land in 500'? Or simply rollout for 500' after standing on the brakes? Big difference. Thanks for the pirep.

 

[JonJay]

That claim is worthless without video. Land in 500'? Or simply rollout for 500' after standing on the brakes? Big difference. Thanks for the pirep.

Only as worthless as my word I guess.
I easily stopped in 500' with nominal breaking. I never stand on the breaks of a tail wheel airplane.
Van's performance specification calls out 350' for what that is worth, but I haven't seen their video

I was across the numbers at around 55 kts, quite a bit slower than my 6. It also weighs under 800 lbs so does not have near as much energy to slow as most RV's.

So, I think it is pretty believable, but of course, I was there....

 

[luddite42]

Sorry, maybe a misunderstanding. Landing on a 350-500' patch of ground (think a sandbar) is different from rolling out for 350'-500' after you are down and start to apply brakes. I doubt you could "easily" and consistently land in 500' (without a lot more practice) if you marked a line 500' from the runway threshold and got stopped short of that line without landing short of the threshold of course. Can anyone post video of landing and stopping 350' past the runway threshold?

 

[Ironflight]

Hey Jon,
Glad to see you managed to get that -3 time! I'm curious what prop it has - our -3 (with the WW-151) has considerably more float (and less prop braking) than the Hartzell-equipped two-seater's we normally fly. We pull the throttle back on final, expecting those boards to come out, and it just keeps going (more than expected). Still not hard to land if you are on speed.

AS far as handling, I have flown enough RV's now, and looked at enough ailerons, to know that the shape of the trailing edge has a lot more to do with how the airplane handles than the particular type of RV to which they are attached. My RV-8 is "solid". I have flown and RV-8 that is light as a feature. Louise's -6 is delightful, and our -3 is absolutely "nimble". all in the shape of that trailing edge.... (you'll find the RV-1 to be more in the "solid" category)

At any rate, taking a new-to-you single seater up is great prep for the RV-1!

Paul

 

[JonJay]

Hey Jon,
Glad to see you managed to get that -3 time! I'm curious what prop it has - our -3 (with the WW-151) has considerably more float (and less prop braking) than the Hartzell-equipped two-seater's we normally fly. We pull the throttle back on final, expecting those boards to come out, and it just keeps going (more than expected). Still not hard to land if you are on speed.

AS far as handling, I have flown enough RV's now, and looked at enough ailerons, to know that the shape of the trailing edge has a lot more to do with how the airplane handles than the particular type of RV to which they are attached. My RV-8 is "solid". I have flown and RV-8 that is light as a feature. Louise's -6 is delightful, and our -3 is absolutely "nimble". all in the shape of that trailing edge.... (you'll find the RV-1 to be more in the "solid" category)

At any rate, taking a new-to-you single seater up is great prep for the RV-1!

Paul

Good to hear from you Paul. If you didn't ask, I would have been able to tell you. I will get that answer. It is an electrically operated variable pitch prop. The owner warned me that you do not want to land with it set flat as it sinks like a rock, so he uses a 2100 max rpm setting for landing. The prop is not governed like a hydraulic CS, it only sets the pitch. So, at 2700, basically take off setting, you have a huge brake up front. I tested this at altitude. It acts like a climb prop and you fall out of the sky when you pull power. The pitch is quite steep and you would have to time your flare perfectly to execute a 3 point landing in that configuration. It is a huge brake. 2100 setting on the controller gives you a nice approach angle at the speeds I was coming in, and still landed very short. (although I guess I am being challenged on what that means )

In speaking with numerous RV3 pilots, I was fully expecting this machine to float. That was the feedback I was getting from those pilots. It did not, not even close. So I was surprised that it just plunked right on, and yes, I was off the runway before 500ft from the threshold, believe it or not. Beginners luck I am sure.

This has been my only RV-3 experience. I am sure there are variances that affect how each machine handles and aileron trailing edge I know can be a big one. I would say my 6 is "delightfull" and the 3 I flew "nimble". So I like that.

In regard to the RV-1. I thought that was a secret. I look forward to it.

 

[rgmwa]

AS far as handling, I have flown enough RV's now, and looked at enough ailerons, to know that the shape of the trailing edge has a lot more to do with how the airplane handles than the particular type of RV to which they are attached.

Paul, could you elaborate a little more on the correlation between shape and handling?

 

[Ironflight]

Paul, could you elaborate a little more on the correlation between shape and handling?

This has been discussed before, but basically, the more convex the surface leading to the trailing edge is, the lighter the handling will be. the more "squished", the heavier. I am not talking about the actual trailing edge radius so much as I am about the inch or so AHEAD of the trailing edge. Put a long straight edge on the upper and lower surface, and see if there is any curvature before the actual bend of the trailing edge - if so, and it is "bulged", expect lighter handling.

I have correlated this with a number of airplanes and many very experienced Rv'ers.

Paul

 

[rgmwa]

This has been discussed before, but basically, the more convex the surface leading to the trailing edge is, the lighter the handling will be. the more "squished", the heavier. I am not talking about the actual trailing edge radius so much as I am about the inch or so AHEAD of the trailing edge. Put a long straight edge on the upper and lower surface, and see if there is any curvature before the actual bend of the trailing edge - if so, and it is "bulged", expect lighter handling.

I have correlated this with a number of airplanes and many very experienced Rv'ers.

Paul

Many thanks. Appreciate the response.

 

[JoeBlank]

Yes, the aileron shape is very important. If the mid portion of the airfoil is at all 'pillowed' (i.e. skin bulges) they will also develop a 'snatch' effect that can be somewhat suprising. As Paul has stated the trailing edge formation controls the soft v/s solid feel. If you've flown a -9/9A or a 10, the riveted aileron trailing edges give those models a more solid roll characteristic.

Jon, 500' landings are totally possible with good airspeed control and a C/S or V/P prop. Van used to land the RV's on the 'Family Farm' grass strip which wasn't much longer than that. It does take some practice though. I can do it pretty consistently with my -6 since I'm more used to it and the -9A and the -12 as they are better behaved at really slow speeds. The other models tend to carry a bit more energy into the landing but can also be landed quite short if energy is managed and the conditions allow it. We probably won't win any Valdez short field contests though...

 

[ppilotmike]

Trailing edge re-visited.

Paul or Joe,

So the tail-feathers of the 10 are created with a riveted trailing edge (as opposed to bending a skin to a small radius). Am I to understand that having such a sharp, straight surface creates a less responsive feel?

I feel like the 10 is quite responsive in pitch, but this is probably more related to the size of the elevators than shape. However, if more responsiveness is desired in roll, could the ailerons be made to purposefully be a little more convex in shape?

 

[JonJay]

Jon, 500' landings are totally possible with good airspeed control and a C/S or V/P prop. QUOTE]

Gosh, I hope so Joe Like I said, beginners luck I am sure.

I can not do it consistently with my 6 but I know it is capable. I have to come in slower than I like and "plop" it on, or drag it over with some power, slow, and a higher than I like nose up pitch. Pretty much not going to grease one on and stay short, so they are not the prettiest landings you will ever see and I don't really have a need to land that short.

The 3 was very stable on final at +- 55kts, didn't feel slow at all. That is pretty close to stall speed in my 6. Considering my 6 weighs nearly 300# more, and I am carrying 8-10kts more speed than the 3, and can still manage 500' on occasion, it only makes sense that the 3 is capable. That is why I am surprised to hear from folks like Paul and Randy that there machines tend to float. But they both have the WW prop too. I need to download from Dan B since he had his prop repitched to see how his 3B is performing. There also may be some differences in the 3's and the 3B. Strictly for my own curiosity.

One can reason the V/P prop on the 3 I was flying, given that it is also quite a bit slower in cruise than my other buddies FP 150hp 6, must be pitched more like a climb/cruise prop even when it is set course. I need to chat with the owner more about that prop. I have never flown behind one before and it certainly was different.

 

[JonJay]

Paul or Joe,

So the tail-feathers of the 10 are created with a riveted trailing edge (as opposed to bending a skin to a small radius). Am I to understand that having such a sharp, straight surface creates a less responsive feel?

I feel like the 10 is quite responsive in pitch, but this is probably more related to the size of the elevators than shape. However, if more responsiveness is desired in roll, could the ailerons be made to purposefully be a little more convex in shape?

Not meaning to answer for Paul or Joe.....
The key is to insure the aileron is straight from the spar to the trailing edge. This will give you the "as-designed" profile. With the 3,4, and 6 where you squish the folded trailing edge , you have to go beyond that point so it springs back to the desired shape. This tends to leave a slight bulge as Paul described. Many folks did not bend the aileron enough as the stiffners tend to limit how far you can squish the trailing edge.
On the other models, the trailing edge is riveted so you get a straight profile without having to overbend.
Also, keep in mind that a lighter feel does not necessarily mean a better roll rate. As Paul described, his 8 has a "solid" feel. That is what I would want in a 10.

 

[JoeBlank]

Paul or Joe,

So the tail-feathers of the 10 are created with a riveted trailing edge (as opposed to bending a skin to a small radius). Am I to understand that having such a sharp, straight surface creates a less responsive feel?

I feel like the 10 is quite responsive in pitch, but this is probably more related to the size of the elevators than shape. However, if more responsiveness is desired in roll, could the ailerons be made to purposefully be a little more convex in shape?

Mike,

Let's call it a more 'solid' feel rather than 'less responsive'. (Paul's use of the term is very accurate) The -9 compared to the 6, 7, 8 is a bit slower in roll with more stick force needed. In pitch, the differences are not all that noticeable. The short-winged/aerobatic cousins are designed to be a bit less stable and more responsive. Different Mission Objectives drive the differences.

The -10 being a much larger and heavier aircraft really can't be compared with it's 2-place cousins as far as handling. (Kind of like comparing a C-152 with a C-182). Think bigger/heavier feel due to it's HP and mass, but 'RV Like' or tendancies at the same time.
I would not change the aileron structure or shape from what is recommended unless you want to go back to test pilot school...

 

[JoeLofton]

FP RV-3

I'll chime in as owner of an RV-3 with a fixed pitch prop. It will float if I cross the numbers with excess speed (of course). Also surprising is how much float can be added with just a touch of RPM above idle. I have a vernier throttle and for short landings have to remember to give it that last twist.

On the flip side, slow approach speeds can lead to an impressive (eye-opening, as the runway comes up) sink rate that demands just-right finesse in the flare to avoid a bounce off the mains, or a tail-wheel-first touchdown.

I've tried different speeds and my sweet spot for consistency and about 1000ft (on grass) is to come off the perch at 1000ft AGL with full flaps, approach at 65-70kts and 1100-1200 rpm, bleeding to idle as the threshold comes up, wheeling it on tail-low, modest use of brakes. The pattern has to be tight to make it work, circling from the perch to short final.

As for 500ft, I'm gonna mark that off and give it a try. Maybe the grass will help. I love my little airplane!

 

[ppilotmike]

Thanks..

Thanks John and Joe. That answers my question. I would love to have the handling of the 7 in the body of a 10, but passengers might not like it. Looks like I'm on track to be a future "repeat offender!"

 

[azfsif18]

On the flip side, slow approach speeds can lead to an impressive (eye-opening, as the runway comes up) sink rate that demands just-right finesse in the flare to avoid a bounce off the mains, or a tail-wheel-first touchdown.

I've tried different speeds and my sweet spot for consistency and about 1000ft (on grass) is to come off the perch at 1000ft AGL with full flaps, approach at 65-70kts.

I'm with you Joe. If I tried to fly over the numbers at 55 KIAS it would be scary.

I'll speak for my RV-3. It has a HUGE sink rate at anything less than 70 mph(62 knots) I fly short final at 75 mph. It's alot safer. I may take more than 500 feet but who cares.

 

[Bob Axsom]

Thanks for the write up JonJay

You observation of slowness is not a surprise to me. More than any specific technical details, it was an enjoyable read with a nice honest style.

Bob Axsom

 

[snoop9erdog]

9 landing distance

Joe,

It sounds like the 9 can routinely be landed at 500-700 feet due to the slower stall speed? I would imagine that FP may be more difficult to conistently get those numbers? I've heard that it does want to float with a little more speed on final.

 

[JonJay]

I'm with you Joe. If I tried to fly over the numbers at 55 KIAS it would be scary.

I'll speak for my RV-3. It has a HUGE sink rate at anything less than 70 mph(62 knots) I fly short final at 75 mph. It's alot safer. I may take more than 500 feet but who cares.

It surprised me too, as this RV-3 was very stable at 55kts and never felt slow at that speed, or during slow flight at altitude.
Your experience with your 3 sounds more like what I see with my CS 6.
Interesting. I think we all need to fly a bunch of 3's and compare more notes

 

[L.Adamson]

It surprised me too, as this RV-3 was very stable at 55kts and never felt slow at that speed, or during slow flight at altitude.
Your experience with your 3 sounds more like what I see with my CS 6.
Interesting. I think we all need to fly a bunch of 3's and compare more notes

My 6 C/S is the same. Get below 60 kias, and you'd better be close to the runway, and airspeed bleeds swiftly & sink rate is high. I know it's the C/S prop, that makes the difference.

 

[JoeBlank]

Joe,

It sounds like the 9 can routinely be landed at 500-700 feet due to the slower stall speed? I would imagine that FP may be more difficult to conistently get those numbers? I've heard that it does want to float with a little more speed on final.

Yes, a -9 FP will require a bit more skill and control to get those numbers, but it is possible. Interestingly enough, they ALL can be landed that short in the right conditions, approach config, speed, etc. We typically demonstrate a short field landing (if the right conditions allow) in the factory demonstrators to illustrate that performance advantage. In most cases it virtually closes the deal.. Part of the WOW factor in the RV Grin...

Van is the consumate expert in demonstrating short field performance. Of course he grew up flying off of a 600' grass strip and probably uses that as a benchmark for short field performance, it's still is a skill that all pilots should be able to demonstrate and carry in your flying toolbag. The key element is Slow Flight skills. Van discusses this a lot in his safety articles.

Practice this up high in smooth conditions until you can hold the aircraft at a specific altitude at VMC type speeds at will. Fly with a CFI or Transition Training Instructor if not comfortable with this type of operation until you are. Lots of pitch, power, and good airspeed control will allow you to be able to perform shallow 180* turns left and right with altitude/heading precision as the goal. CAUTION: C/S equipped aircraft can/will develop a significant sink rate if you get them too slow and on the back side of the power curve. Be aware of this and use more power when needed.

This is certainly not meant to be an instructional piece on 'how to land short' but rather a reminder to hone our skills at different aspects of slow flight, which is the key element. The net benefit of slow flight is short landings and safer control of the aircraft near the ground. Have fun, be safe...

 

[smokyray]

AOA is AOK...

Yes, a -9 FP will require a bit more skill and control to get those numbers, but it is possible. Interestingly enough, they ALL can be landed that short in the right conditions, approach config, speed, etc. We typically demonstrate a short field landing (if the right conditions allow) in the factory demonstrators to illustrate that performance advantage. In most cases it virtually closes the deal.. Part of the WOW factor in the RV Grin...
...

Well said Joe,
I love the RV-3 and shared a hangar at a farm grass strip alongside my T-Craft for years. It was my first RV flight. It inspired me to keep my subsequent RV's much like the Three, light, cheap and simple. That said:

All my RV's (well two RV's and one HR2 "super RV") were test flown where they were built, my friend Arvil's 1200' strip. Numerous takeoffs and landings during the test phase proved the design superb as we all know.

My home strip is 1800' usable with 50' trees at both ends. With lots of practice, I can easily land and stop over a 50' obstacle with FP Catto prop in the RVX or my RV4 in 600 feet. I could equal those numbers in my HR2 with Hartzell "paddle" flying final at Optimum AOA* . As you mentioned, properly flown, any RV can be landed and stopped in under 500 feet with practice, with approach speeds below 60 knots. I know all too well, I have to perform this feat every time I land.

V/R
Smokey

*Every Modern Jet Fighter approach is flown referencing Optimum AOA measured in units. A proper STOL RV approach requires "max performing" the aircraft as well. AOA works very well indeed. I like the Lift Reserve Indicator, very simple, requires no electrics and works, very well.



http://www.mountainflying.com/Pages/articles/alpha_systems_aoa.html