Newbie

[jimpilot56]

Have had an RV6 tail kit since 2001...finally looks like Ill have the time to
start building an airplane....and hopefully...finish.

How does the interior room and dimensions of the 6 compare to the AA1A, Beech Skipper and similar aircraft. I know it blows them out of the air performance wise, but Im curious about comfort (basically for the Wife

Thanks....look forward to learning much from this forum...

Jim

 

[WenEng]

Hi Jim.....

For starts why not go to youtube.com and search for rv6 and watch a few of those videos where you will see some cockpit shots of two people flying. Its cozy but she is your wife.....
You plan to carefully enter and exit so you don't put too much leverage on the your precious parts. You usually step onto the seat and then onto the floor as you scoot down into your seat, but many people master stepping onto the floor right off the bat. Not me. There's a stick between your legs unless you plan for a removable one for your wife's side. What happens is you are so amazed at what the plane does and how you can see everything outside that you soon don't mind being a little cozy, especially if either of you are large people. I have to close by saying there's no comparison to the aircraft you mentioned. Enjoy your build.

 

[flytoboat]

Sounds like a geat time to upgrade to the 7 kit...

 

[java]

Why?

Sounds like a geat time to upgrade to the 7 kit...

I've flown both a 6 and 7. If a 6 cannot work for you space wise, you're better off going to a 10. The extra space in a 7 is modest at best, and for many probably not even noticeable. As for me, I notice a bit more headroom in the 7, mostly on the upper "corners" of the canopy (when you lean your head to the side). Maybe there is more shoulder room? but I couldn't tell. Leg room seems the same. Overall, not enough difference to scrap a 6 build to move to a 7. Bigger differences are the gross weight (often ignored) and 4 gallons more of fuel.

Two cents worth, but I don't expect to collect .

 

[flytoboat]

I've flown both a 6 and 7. If a 6 cannot work for you space wise, you're better off going to a 10. The extra space in a 7 is modest at best, and for many probably not even noticeable. As for me, I notice a bit more headroom in the 7, mostly on the upper "corners" of the canopy (when you lean your head to the side). Maybe there is more shoulder room? but I couldn't tell. Leg room seems the same. Overall, not enough difference to scrap a 6 build to move to a 7. Bigger differences are the gross weight (often ignored) and 4 gallons more of fuel.

Two cents worth, but I don't expect to collect .

I was speaking strictly from a build perspective - pre-punched versus no holes pre-punched. (everone already knows the 7 is a far superior airplane anyway ) I know others who started with a 6 and ended up with a 7. Brantel are you listening?

 

[java]

Far Superior?

(everone already knows the 7 is a far superior airplane anyway )

Uh oh... Mel? Pierre? Anyone want to chime in?

(Yes... I know you're just kidding )

Starting a build (and I did, subsequently sold), I'd build a 7. Of course, I'd have no choice... I'd have to, but would anyway if there was a choice. Buying a flying aircraft, I'd buy a 6 (and I did). Too big a $ difference for too little benefit. If I had a 6 partially built, I'd be very happy completing it and know that I had an airframe that would easily fly with any comparably built 7.

Of course, now that I'm a 6 owner, I also have to point out that the frankenstein tail on the 7 is visually out of proportion to the rest of the airplane, and the 6 get's the check mark on looks .

 

[java]

Have had an RV6 tail kit since 2001...finally looks like Ill have the time to
start building an airplane....and hopefully...finish.

How does the interior room and dimensions of the 6 compare to the AA1A, Beech Skipper and similar aircraft. I know it blows them out of the air performance wise, but Im curious about comfort (basically for the Wife

Thanks....look forward to learning much from this forum...

Jim

Jim,

I realized that the preceding back-and-forth, though all in fun (get used to it here in the forums) wasn't really answering your question.

Having not flown an AA1A or Skipper, I can't comment specifically. What I will say is that the 6 is snug but comfortable. It is a two place, side by side sport plane, not a four or six place heavy hauler. Think Corvette, not Cadillac. There are good and easy build adaptations to make it more spacious (eliminate the vertical center throttle / prop / mixture brace, set the seat backs at their aft position (top and bottom), build the rudder pedals with adequate adjustments), but it will never be a 182 or Cherokee Six. Long trips in the 6 will require compromises but are very doable if you're adaptable. If the wife wants to bring six pairs of shoes and three outfits to go with each, or if you're both on the right side of the bell curve in terms of height and/or weight, you're probably gonna have troubles with any Van's aircraft outside of the 10.

RV6's are ubiquitous... find one close by and sit in it for awhile and you'll know.

 

[pierre smith]

I've flown all the two seaters..

...and the -6 is my choice by far. I flew mine for 5 years and 500 hours and never looked back. For a true sports car feel, Porsche-like, the -6 is it. They all fly well but there's just something about the feel of a -6 that beats the others.

Regards,

 

[Rick6a]

If you seek a reasonable, unbiased comparison as far as seating accomodation and general comfort in the RV-6 or -7 is concerned, think C-152 and you won't be disappointed.

 

[L.Adamson]

Of course, now that I'm a 6 owner, I also have to point out that the frankenstein tail on the 7 is visually out of proportion to the rest of the airplane, and the 6 get's the check mark on looks .

Yes, the classic tail is certainly much better looking!

L.Adamson ---- RV6A

 

[Rick6a]

.... They all fly well but there's just something about the feel of a -6 that beats the others......

I agree with Pierre on that very point. I also feel my comments are not unduly biased by past recollection or colored by pride of ownership issues simply because I am fortunate to fly my -6A and -8 whenever I want. Admittedly, I don't have a lot of time in the -8 yet but in IMHO, both RV's handle exceedingly well. If I had to split hairs, comparatively speaking I'd have to say the overall in-flight handling "responsiveness" of the -6A does seem slightly superior to me.

 

[Mel]

Well I'll just say this;

Uh oh... Mel? Pierre? Anyone want to chime in?

In my aviation career, I've owned nine airplanes. All but one, I owned for an average of 2-4 years. I've now been flying my -6 for almost 18 years and have no intention of building a -7.
'nuff said?

 

[Ifly12]

rv-6a

Mel is the man!! Besides the tail on the 7 looks like it belongs on a 757.

Regards,

John

 

[BSwayze]

Beauty is in the eye...

Say what you want about the looks of the tail of the 6 vs. the 7, gentlemen. I guess it's all what you're used to looking at. The 6's tail looks short and stubby to me. Plus, I want the extra rudder authority and the counterbalanced rudder any day. Vans enlarged the rudder for a reason when they designed the 7, 8, and 9.

 

[jimpilot56]

Pre-Punch ?

Thanks for all the great input.....guess the next question becomes...how much time does the Pre-punching on the RV7 save...and is there any market for
my 6 empennage kit ?

 

[Flybuddy2]

Say what you want about the looks of the tail of the 6 vs. the 7, gentlemen. I guess it's all what you're used to looking at. The 6's tail looks short and stubby to me. Plus, I want the extra rudder authority and the counterbalanced rudder any day. Vans enlarged the rudder for a reason when they designed the 7, 8, and 9.

I can understand the increased rudder authority being a valid bump up (and you'll need it with more weathervaning in a crosswind)...BUT, what was Vans reason for increasing wingspan on the 7? The 6 has low stall speed and good slow flight characteristics as well as more than enough high altitude performance. Why slow a good plane down with more span?

 

[Cadstat]

Cozy

I went from a C210 Centurion to a RV6A. The RV is 40 inches inside wall to wall at the shoulders. It's more like a Mooney. Tighter than a Cherokee but way bigger than the back seat in a Long EZ. At least I fly with only one empty seat not 5. Almost the same speed at 1/2 the fuel.

 

[F44evr]

Build Time

Thanks for all the great input.....guess the next question becomes...how much time does the Pre-punching on the RV7 save...and is there any market for
my 6 empennage kit ?

I've never worked on a 7 but I'm pretty sure there is a significant time advantage with the pre-punched kits. The main spar on the 6 is now pre-drilled, but you assemble it. I think the 7 spar is anodized and assembled for you. The 6 wing skins are now pre-punched, so there is some time savings there. I'd guestimate that the jigging, layout, and drilling of the fuselage adds a minimum of 20% in build time over the 7.

Someone on the forum who has worked on both the 6 and 7 should be able to give you a better build time comparison.

You'll never know about the market for your kit till you put a price on it and try to sell it.

I'm on the finishing kit on an early (1991) RV-6. The only pre punched kit I've had is the firewall heater box. It was easier than measuring, layout, and drilling.

FWIW,
Dave
Super Slow Build 6
Finishing Kit - FWF

 

[Mel]

I can understand the increased rudder authority being a valid bump up (and you'll need it with more weathervaning in a crosswind)...BUT, what was Vans reason for increasing wingspan on the 7? The 6 has low stall speed and good slow flight characteristics as well as more than enough high altitude performance. Why slow a good plane down with more span?

The crosswind capability is somewhat of a "wash". Yes, the larger rudder gives you more authority, but because of the larger total surface, it tends to weather-vane more so you need the addition authority.

The -7 has the larger tail primarily for spin recovery. The -6 is lacking on spin recovery after about 2 turns.

The addition wingspan on the -7 is simply a result of using the wings from a tandem fuselage (RV-8).

 

[Flybuddy2]

The crosswind capability is somewhat of a "wash". Yes, the larger rudder gives you more authority, but because of the larger total surface, it tends to weather-vane more so you need the addition authority.

The -7 has the larger tail primarily for spin recovery. The -6 is lacking on spin recovery after about 2 turns.

The addition wingspan on the -7 is simply a result of using the wings from a tandem fuselage (RV-8).

Thx Mel--but still baffled as to the reason to go with 8 wing as opposed to 6. Don't see much to gain with larger span. Downside is more space needed in the hangar and slower. Was it for the "ease of construction"?? (wasn't that a Barry McGuire song?)

 

[java]

6, 7 & 9

Thx Mel--but still baffled as to the reason to go with 8 wing as opposed to 6. Don't see much to gain with larger span. Downside is more space needed in the hangar and slower. Was it for the "ease of construction"?? (wasn't that a Barry McGuire song?)

Six wing wouldn't work with the 7 centre section (totally different spars). If they built the 7 centre section to fit the 6 wing, then it wouldn't fit the 9 (7 and 9 fuse are the same).

It seems a really logical thing to me. Minimize manufacturing complexity and significantly reduce parts inventory by combining parts between models where possible.

How much faster would the 7 be with 6 wings anyway?

 

[Flybuddy2]

Six wing wouldn't work with the 7 centre section (totally different spars). If they built the 7 centre section to fit the 6 wing, then it wouldn't fit the 9 (7 and 9 fuse are the same).

It seems a really logical thing to me. Minimize manufacturing complexity and significantly reduce parts inventory by combining parts between models where possible.

How much faster would the 7 be with 6 wings anyway?

Thx--makes sense