Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV-6 Following
- Thread starter Kiwi
- Start date
I think the -6 is better than the -7. The few advantages of the -7 are; longer range (I don't need it), more leg & head room (I don't need it), higher VNE (I don't need it) and easier to build (I don't need it).
The advent of the -7 was mainly an advantage for Van's. By taking parts from the -8 and -9, they had a pre-punched -7 kit.
There is no stronger RV than the -6. Look at how the wings are attached. Ever heard of a structural failure of a -6?
Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the -7, I just like the -6 better.
The advent of the -7 was mainly an advantage for Van's. By taking parts from the -8 and -9, they had a pre-punched -7 kit.
There is no stronger RV than the -6. Look at how the wings are attached. Ever heard of a structural failure of a -6?
Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the -7, I just like the -6 better.
Bob Martin
Well Known Member
me too
What Mel said.......
except I could use more room, I'm a bubba!
I love my -6!
and there are 3 more RV-6's on my small airport.
I'm pretty sure they all love theirs as well.
What Mel said.......
except I could use more room, I'm a bubba!
I love my -6!
and there are 3 more RV-6's on my small airport.
I'm pretty sure they all love theirs as well.
jonbakerok
Well Known Member
Define "Better"
Well, you have to define "better", but personally if someone offered to give me either of two identically equipped planes with the same build quality, I'd take the 6. I like the carry-through spar. It's also slightly faster on the same horsepower, balanced better, tends not to wag its tail as much in turbulence, and to my eye just looks better with the smaller tail. Frankly, I've never understood the difference in price on the used market.
But when you're looking at real planes, the 7 certainly has its advantages. The average build quality between 7's and 6's is like night an day because the 7's are so much easier to build and the support is so much better nowadays. It's easier to find a 7 with all the jazz -- 180hp, fuel injection, glass cockpit, electronic ignition, while most 6's will have steam gauges and a carb. The aerobatic gross is higher on the 7 for some unknown reason despite the stronger 6 wing. In fact, the vast majority of 6's are over the aerobatic limit with one pilot and half an hour's gas. The 7 also has a higher gross. However, the gear is the limiting factor on both planes, so I don't understand why Van's has never raised the recommended gross on the 6 to match the 7. It really doesn't make much sense, since there have been proportionally more 7A rollovers than 6A's, and the 6's has slightly shorter gear. Personally, I wouldn't rule out the 6 on that basis, unless the builder actually set the gross to 1600 as recommended.
If you're looking for a side-by-side RV, don't discount either one. Just buy the first one the shows up at the right price that matches your requirements. There really isn't enough difference between them to pick one over the other just because you've decided that the 7 is "better" than a 6 or vice-versa. They are both so far beyond anything else you've ever flown that it's like arguing over the difference between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini as compared to a Ford Explorer.
I'm not sure why you included the 9 in the comparison. It's a completely different plane. No comparison. Buy a 9 if the idea of a 1000 fpm power-off descent rate scares you -- or you want a stable Cessna-like IFR platform. However, you'll have to give up the smoother ride in turbulence and the safety factor of a 6G wing.
Well, you have to define "better", but personally if someone offered to give me either of two identically equipped planes with the same build quality, I'd take the 6. I like the carry-through spar. It's also slightly faster on the same horsepower, balanced better, tends not to wag its tail as much in turbulence, and to my eye just looks better with the smaller tail. Frankly, I've never understood the difference in price on the used market.
But when you're looking at real planes, the 7 certainly has its advantages. The average build quality between 7's and 6's is like night an day because the 7's are so much easier to build and the support is so much better nowadays. It's easier to find a 7 with all the jazz -- 180hp, fuel injection, glass cockpit, electronic ignition, while most 6's will have steam gauges and a carb. The aerobatic gross is higher on the 7 for some unknown reason despite the stronger 6 wing. In fact, the vast majority of 6's are over the aerobatic limit with one pilot and half an hour's gas. The 7 also has a higher gross. However, the gear is the limiting factor on both planes, so I don't understand why Van's has never raised the recommended gross on the 6 to match the 7. It really doesn't make much sense, since there have been proportionally more 7A rollovers than 6A's, and the 6's has slightly shorter gear. Personally, I wouldn't rule out the 6 on that basis, unless the builder actually set the gross to 1600 as recommended.
If you're looking for a side-by-side RV, don't discount either one. Just buy the first one the shows up at the right price that matches your requirements. There really isn't enough difference between them to pick one over the other just because you've decided that the 7 is "better" than a 6 or vice-versa. They are both so far beyond anything else you've ever flown that it's like arguing over the difference between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini as compared to a Ford Explorer.
I'm not sure why you included the 9 in the comparison. It's a completely different plane. No comparison. Buy a 9 if the idea of a 1000 fpm power-off descent rate scares you -- or you want a stable Cessna-like IFR platform. However, you'll have to give up the smoother ride in turbulence and the safety factor of a 6G wing.
Last edited:
N941WR
Legacy Member
Mel,
Is that correct?
Looking at the Van's manual, the -6 is rated for +6/-3 at an aerobatic GW of 1375 while the -7 & -8 can pull those same numbers at 1600 lbs. (Page 15-21, in my builder's manual.)
The -9 is not designed for the same mission as the -6 & -7, thus the comparison is not valid. Unless, you are just thinking of a cruiser and not an acro mount. If acro is out of the picture, the -9 is a better mount because it is almost as fast as the others, lands slower, and is more stable. It all comes down to where you want to compromise.
n5lp
fugio ergo sum
I don't know which wing is stronger but I know in my RV-6 builder's manual the limitation is listed at +6/-6 at the aerobatic gross weight. I have always wondered why that was changed and why the newer models have a lower negative limitation.
I love my RV-6 and like the looks of it over the RV-7 but if I was one to want 200 HP I guess I would take the RV-7 because it is designed for that.
Jamie
Well Known Member
You sure about that? I have flown -6's and -7's and I feel like that opposite is true -- the -6's wag a lot more. Of course the -6's that I have flown do not have counterbalanced rudders, whereas of course the -7s do (also I have the later, larger -7 rudder). Also the larger tail and rudder on the -7 seems to suggest less tail wagging on the -7s than the -6s.
6 is quicker in roll
The 6 is definitely quicker in roll than a 7, and quicker in pitch than a 4 with two people aboard. I happen to have a 6 with 7 size fuel tanks so best of both worlds... I haven't flown 7's enough to have an opinion on tail wag, but I could see how the additional wingspan could produce stronger yaw inputs.
They are both fantastic planes. If you are buying used however, you get a lot more for your money with a 6 because the market undervalues the 6 IMHO.
Hans
The 6 is definitely quicker in roll than a 7, and quicker in pitch than a 4 with two people aboard. I happen to have a 6 with 7 size fuel tanks so best of both worlds... I haven't flown 7's enough to have an opinion on tail wag, but I could see how the additional wingspan could produce stronger yaw inputs.
They are both fantastic planes. If you are buying used however, you get a lot more for your money with a 6 because the market undervalues the 6 IMHO.
Hans
Jerry Cochran
Well Known Member
Right you are, Jamie... I have owned both small tail and larger tail -6a's and the small one def wags it's tail more. Never enough to be troubling, however.
Just my dime,
Jerry
JonJay
Well Known Member
The numbers speak for themselves...
As of August 17, 2009 6,323 RV aircraft have been
completed and flown!
Listed by Model
RV-3 263
RV-4 1306
RV-6/6A 2355
RV-7/7A 829
RV-8/8A 907
RV-9/9A 463
RV-10 197
RV-12 3
The newer models, 7 and 8, will outrun and outrange most 6's with their 200 ponies and big gas tanks, but I would not trade mine even at even money. The 6, still, and always, the best looking of the fleet IMO. ( I never noticed the tail wag until it was pointed out in this forum. Now I notice it on any bumpy flight. It is just part of the character of the airplane)
I think you will find a very loyal following of 6 owners, just like the other legacy models.
As of August 17, 2009 6,323 RV aircraft have been
completed and flown!
Listed by Model
RV-3 263
RV-4 1306
RV-6/6A 2355
RV-7/7A 829
RV-8/8A 907
RV-9/9A 463
RV-10 197
RV-12 3
The newer models, 7 and 8, will outrun and outrange most 6's with their 200 ponies and big gas tanks, but I would not trade mine even at even money. The 6, still, and always, the best looking of the fleet IMO. ( I never noticed the tail wag until it was pointed out in this forum. Now I notice it on any bumpy flight. It is just part of the character of the airplane)
I think you will find a very loyal following of 6 owners, just like the other legacy models.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
9's are just as bumpy...
9's with the larger tail, get bumped around just as much as my short classic tail 6A.
I don't notice any more tail wag than the 9 either. But one thing is for sure; If I'm getting bumped around the sky, the 9 that fly's along side is too!
Yesterday morning was one of those perfectly smooth & cool cross countries.
Yesterday afternoon was "jerk" city, until I went to 11,500. And the "9" wasn't fairing any better...
L.Adamson ----
9's with the larger tail, get bumped around just as much as my short classic tail 6A.
I don't notice any more tail wag than the 9 either. But one thing is for sure; If I'm getting bumped around the sky, the 9 that fly's along side is too!
Yesterday morning was one of those perfectly smooth & cool cross countries.
Yesterday afternoon was "jerk" city, until I went to 11,500. And the "9" wasn't fairing any better...
L.Adamson ----
jonbakerok
Well Known Member
I think it's CG, not the size of the rudder
It's a subjective thing, I guess. But I don't remember the question ever coming up until the 7 arrived. I know it surprised me the first time I rode in a 7. My 6A didn't wag at all. It had a C/S prop, small rudder, and forward CG. I tend to think it has more to do with CG than the size of the rudder.
It's a subjective thing, I guess. But I don't remember the question ever coming up until the 7 arrived. I know it surprised me the first time I rode in a 7. My 6A didn't wag at all. It had a C/S prop, small rudder, and forward CG. I tend to think it has more to do with CG than the size of the rudder.
Thanks for all your responses.
I deliberately didn?t define ?better? because I didn?t want to channel the discussion down a particular path. Any RV4 owner will start up with very little prompting about how much better RV4s are than ANY other RV. As it is, the thread has ended up on the old tail-wag debate (sorry! Couldn?t resist). I wanted to see if it was the same with the ?6.
The reason I mentioned the RV9 is that to me, as a person who does not own an RV, the RV-6/7/9 are all variations on a theme. The RV-9 isn?t a completely different aeroplane to me. OK if you choose the RV-9 you give up aerobatic capability, but to me it?s like choosing between a Citabria and a Super Cub, there are going to be reasons other than aerobatic capability as to why you choose one over the other. It is interesting though that you get a smoother ride in turbulence in the RV6 compared to the RV9.
I have concluded previously that the RV6 is, on paper, the pick of the bunch if you only want to equip your aircraft with an O-320. Using the Vans specs the stall speed sits right between the RV7 & RV9, there isn?t much between the three in the cruise speeds and the slightly lower gross and empty weights with the RV6 mean you pick up a bit of takeoff and climb performance.
I don?t want to build an O-360/constant speed powered aircraft with all the fruit. Thus the RV7 offers a whole lot of things I don?t need:
42 US gallons of gas: Don?t need that much in a little country like NZ
Higher gross weight: Don?t need that. 600lb useful load is sufficient. And it works against the O-320 concept.
Ability to install 200 hp engine: Don?t need that.
More room than RV6: I thought the RV6 positively ball-room like.
Pre-punched: I can live without that, arguably I?d prefer non-prepunched.
Wing attach: I agree that reacting the wing bending moment over such a short distance is intuitively less comfortable than the RV6 wing attach method.
However when I?ve expressed these ideas people have wondered what planet I have just come from. Good to hear some people with similar thoughts.
It?s a shame Vans will not issue new start serial numbers for the RV6, and not kept them going like the RV4. There is quite a premium to pay for the pre-punched RV7/9 kits over the old style RV6 kits. It a pitty those of us with drills don?t have the option to still buy the ?6. A second hand tail kit has come up for sale, a rare event here in New Zealand, which will get me around that problem. But this is why I?m asking the original question. Before I dive in, I?m trying to find out what really is wrong with building an RV6?
Cheers,
Andrew.
I deliberately didn?t define ?better? because I didn?t want to channel the discussion down a particular path. Any RV4 owner will start up with very little prompting about how much better RV4s are than ANY other RV. As it is, the thread has ended up on the old tail-wag debate (sorry! Couldn?t resist). I wanted to see if it was the same with the ?6.
The reason I mentioned the RV9 is that to me, as a person who does not own an RV, the RV-6/7/9 are all variations on a theme. The RV-9 isn?t a completely different aeroplane to me. OK if you choose the RV-9 you give up aerobatic capability, but to me it?s like choosing between a Citabria and a Super Cub, there are going to be reasons other than aerobatic capability as to why you choose one over the other. It is interesting though that you get a smoother ride in turbulence in the RV6 compared to the RV9.
I have concluded previously that the RV6 is, on paper, the pick of the bunch if you only want to equip your aircraft with an O-320. Using the Vans specs the stall speed sits right between the RV7 & RV9, there isn?t much between the three in the cruise speeds and the slightly lower gross and empty weights with the RV6 mean you pick up a bit of takeoff and climb performance.
I don?t want to build an O-360/constant speed powered aircraft with all the fruit. Thus the RV7 offers a whole lot of things I don?t need:
42 US gallons of gas: Don?t need that much in a little country like NZ
Higher gross weight: Don?t need that. 600lb useful load is sufficient. And it works against the O-320 concept.
Ability to install 200 hp engine: Don?t need that.
More room than RV6: I thought the RV6 positively ball-room like.
Pre-punched: I can live without that, arguably I?d prefer non-prepunched.
Wing attach: I agree that reacting the wing bending moment over such a short distance is intuitively less comfortable than the RV6 wing attach method.
However when I?ve expressed these ideas people have wondered what planet I have just come from. Good to hear some people with similar thoughts.
It?s a shame Vans will not issue new start serial numbers for the RV6, and not kept them going like the RV4. There is quite a premium to pay for the pre-punched RV7/9 kits over the old style RV6 kits. It a pitty those of us with drills don?t have the option to still buy the ?6. A second hand tail kit has come up for sale, a rare event here in New Zealand, which will get me around that problem. But this is why I?m asking the original question. Before I dive in, I?m trying to find out what really is wrong with building an RV6?
Cheers,
Andrew.
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Nothing!
I truly love mine. I've flown them all, except a -3 and a -10 and the -6 handles like a Porsche 911.
Build it,
I truly love mine. I've flown them all, except a -3 and a -10 and the -6 handles like a Porsche 911.
Build it,
Rick6a
Well Known Member
Andrew,
It sounds like you have given the matter a lot of careful thought. I am not going to discuss unique flying qualities because that topic can be soooo subjective and proves little other than giving some responders a chance to express their own personal opinion.
I get the impression you are not at all afraid to take raw stock and blank parts, shape them, lay out rivet hole patterns and pick up that drill motor. No doubt, building a -6 (even more so with a -3 or -4) will distance you from that sizable segment of the market that could not or would not be able to build an airplane if not for the dramatic advantages that Tab A into Slot B matched hole construction drops into your lap. The latter group of builders no longer requires the expense of special tools, the necessity to fabricate hand-made jigs, or even nurture a skill set that traditional sheet metal aircraft construction practices demand. For the price of admission, even all the many places where the builder can otherwise choose to cut in optional lightening holes has already been decided. But based upon your previous comments, I suspect you already knew as much.
Aside from the enormous advantage that matched hole construction provides, there is another point you may not have considered. It is a matter of practicality and only you can decide if this point is worthy of consideration. That is this: All -6 series RV's are essentially hand made and one of a kind. If you damage it, repair will be far more time consuming and complicated than if you damage a -7 series airframe. That is because -7 series wings and fuselages are readily interchangeable. More than one builder has ordered and spliced a new quick build fuselage onto undamaged wings and vice versa. This could well prove the difference between totaling an airframe or justifying a complete restoration. From the standpoint of pure economics, this fact alone *may* be among the reasons why some perceive the market to declare the -7 series as generally worth more than comparably equipped -6 series RV's.
It sounds like you have given the matter a lot of careful thought. I am not going to discuss unique flying qualities because that topic can be soooo subjective and proves little other than giving some responders a chance to express their own personal opinion.
I get the impression you are not at all afraid to take raw stock and blank parts, shape them, lay out rivet hole patterns and pick up that drill motor. No doubt, building a -6 (even more so with a -3 or -4) will distance you from that sizable segment of the market that could not or would not be able to build an airplane if not for the dramatic advantages that Tab A into Slot B matched hole construction drops into your lap. The latter group of builders no longer requires the expense of special tools, the necessity to fabricate hand-made jigs, or even nurture a skill set that traditional sheet metal aircraft construction practices demand. For the price of admission, even all the many places where the builder can otherwise choose to cut in optional lightening holes has already been decided. But based upon your previous comments, I suspect you already knew as much.
Aside from the enormous advantage that matched hole construction provides, there is another point you may not have considered. It is a matter of practicality and only you can decide if this point is worthy of consideration. That is this: All -6 series RV's are essentially hand made and one of a kind. If you damage it, repair will be far more time consuming and complicated than if you damage a -7 series airframe. That is because -7 series wings and fuselages are readily interchangeable. More than one builder has ordered and spliced a new quick build fuselage onto undamaged wings and vice versa. This could well prove the difference between totaling an airframe or justifying a complete restoration. From the standpoint of pure economics, this fact alone *may* be among the reasons why some perceive the market to declare the -7 series as generally worth more than comparably equipped -6 series RV's.
Andrew,
Sounds like your reasons reflect my thoughts exactly. I think you would be VERY happy building the -6.
Go get it.
My RV-6A is Special and Fast
I have a short tail six that my wife and I built over 8 years which I continue to modify for increased speed. Its initial configuration speed of 170.67 kts at 6000 ft density altitude has been increased to 184.4 kts. I have three different wingspan configurations 21.5 feet, 23 feet and 24.5 feet. The latter two with 55 gallon fuel capacity, higher speeds and faster roll rate with each span reduction but lights on the long wing only. There is extensive baffling in the lower cowl, the outboard recesses in the horizontal stab and elevator are filled, subfairings are added to the wheel fairings for racing, the canopy side skirt is very rigid well sealed with no overhanging skag and the work continues. It is powered by an O-360-A1A Lycoming with with the old 72" F7666 bladed Hartzell C/S prop (I wish I could afford 7496 blended airfoil blades - someday) and LASAR ignition. I live in Arkansas and fly with my wife with full complement of clothes to the limits of the 48 contiguous United States IFR and VFR quickly and comfortably. For me the short tail RV-6 is the right size for speed capability and I have no idea what the tail wag is that others have mentioned. It will not outrun the fastest RV-8s or David Anders' RV-4 but everything else in the RV world has got a very hard time beating us even with our RV-6A loaded with clothes, tools and two people (ref. the threads in the test section and the general section about RV speeds in SARL racing). The RV-6 spar design reminds me of an F-4 Phantom II which had the left and right main wing panels built as a single structure separate from the fuselage - STRONG!
Bob Axsom
I have a short tail six that my wife and I built over 8 years which I continue to modify for increased speed. Its initial configuration speed of 170.67 kts at 6000 ft density altitude has been increased to 184.4 kts. I have three different wingspan configurations 21.5 feet, 23 feet and 24.5 feet. The latter two with 55 gallon fuel capacity, higher speeds and faster roll rate with each span reduction but lights on the long wing only. There is extensive baffling in the lower cowl, the outboard recesses in the horizontal stab and elevator are filled, subfairings are added to the wheel fairings for racing, the canopy side skirt is very rigid well sealed with no overhanging skag and the work continues. It is powered by an O-360-A1A Lycoming with with the old 72" F7666 bladed Hartzell C/S prop (I wish I could afford 7496 blended airfoil blades - someday) and LASAR ignition. I live in Arkansas and fly with my wife with full complement of clothes to the limits of the 48 contiguous United States IFR and VFR quickly and comfortably. For me the short tail RV-6 is the right size for speed capability and I have no idea what the tail wag is that others have mentioned. It will not outrun the fastest RV-8s or David Anders' RV-4 but everything else in the RV world has got a very hard time beating us even with our RV-6A loaded with clothes, tools and two people (ref. the threads in the test section and the general section about RV speeds in SARL racing). The RV-6 spar design reminds me of an F-4 Phantom II which had the left and right main wing panels built as a single structure separate from the fuselage - STRONG!
Bob Axsom
Last edited:
flion
Well Known Member
I'll weigh in with a couple of thoughts. Rick pretty much nailed the basics. Having built the -6A and just finished the VS of the -10, I can say that I really appreciate the pre-fab of the newer kits but there was something charming about working the older one. I remember cutting the VS spar 'fork' to rough shape by hacksaw (I lived in an apartment, no major power tools then) and then taking it down to final shape with a ******* file and finally polishing it with a scotchbrite wheel. To me, that single part felt like a work of art and a huge accomplishment. Still, such work is not for everybody.
I don't have anything to say about comparing the flying qualities; having only flown my -6A, but I like it just fine. However, I know a guy building a -7A and that huge step up to the wing is a little daunting. He's not putting steps in and I know what a chore it is to step up on a -6A (mine has steps but I've tried getting up there without them). However, ground clearance and all that, especially on the non-A models, is not a bad thing.
Anyway, I've no plans to swap the -6A for a -7A. My wife and I are quite comfortable in it and it was a lot of fun to build. While that's not the same as jumping on the -6 bandwagon and beating the drum, I guess you could say I'm part of the following.
I don't have anything to say about comparing the flying qualities; having only flown my -6A, but I like it just fine. However, I know a guy building a -7A and that huge step up to the wing is a little daunting. He's not putting steps in
and I know what a chore it is to step up on a -6A (mine has steps but I've tried getting up there without them). However, ground clearance and all that, especially on the non-A models, is not a bad thing.Anyway, I've no plans to swap the -6A for a -7A. My wife and I are quite comfortable in it and it was a lot of fun to build. While that's not the same as jumping on the -6 bandwagon and beating the drum, I guess you could say I'm part of the following.
regarding turbulance, "bumps" I always thought it was mostly related to wing loading. the 9 with its larger wing and similar weight would feel worse in equal turbulance than a short wing RV.
Interesting thread indeed. Right now in the barn sits my RV6 and a friends RV7. Both are 360 c/s powered planes. Both build similarly...both have their pros over the other. My 6 has a 7/9 tail on it, although for some time I still had my older 6 with the short tail on it. Again pros/cons for each.
Here's my take. The 6 handles a bit nicer (that again is subjective, but it is noticeably lighter on the controls). The wing spar with the steel plates in the center section is something that gives me comfort when yankin/banking. The RV7 for whatever reason seems to land nicer and better. This I've noticed over flying a number of 6's and a number of 7's. Again I don't know why, but it's much easier to make near perfect landings in the 7 than it is in my 6. Speed wise both are pretty close, but my old FP RV6 would outrun both of these CS powered ones on the top end wide open. These C/S ones will get of the ground twice as fast as my old FP one and will come down a lot faster if you want. The 7 has a bit of extra headroom, shoulder room and legroom over my 6 which is nice for us tall folk.
In the end it's a hard decision for you because the new kits are REALLY nice kits...that can't be argued. It's faster and easier to build without a doubt. I love my 6, but I like the 7 as well. Like I said both have their pros/cons. Personally, I guess overall I'd still probably take the 7, but I'd rather use the 6 for tossin around. I can't give you much other advice except that I routinely will fly both in the same afternoon (and for awhile we had three of them to play with), so I get a good amount of back and forth experience in them. Heck, sometimes I'll land the RV then hop in the PA-12 or a friends Champ...talk about extremes!
My 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein
Here's my take. The 6 handles a bit nicer (that again is subjective, but it is noticeably lighter on the controls). The wing spar with the steel plates in the center section is something that gives me comfort when yankin/banking. The RV7 for whatever reason seems to land nicer and better. This I've noticed over flying a number of 6's and a number of 7's. Again I don't know why, but it's much easier to make near perfect landings in the 7 than it is in my 6. Speed wise both are pretty close, but my old FP RV6 would outrun both of these CS powered ones on the top end wide open. These C/S ones will get of the ground twice as fast as my old FP one and will come down a lot faster if you want. The 7 has a bit of extra headroom, shoulder room and legroom over my 6 which is nice for us tall folk.
In the end it's a hard decision for you because the new kits are REALLY nice kits...that can't be argued. It's faster and easier to build without a doubt. I love my 6, but I like the 7 as well. Like I said both have their pros/cons. Personally, I guess overall I'd still probably take the 7, but I'd rather use the 6 for tossin around. I can't give you much other advice except that I routinely will fly both in the same afternoon (and for awhile we had three of them to play with), so I get a good amount of back and forth experience in them. Heck, sometimes I'll land the RV then hop in the PA-12 or a friends Champ...talk about extremes!
My 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein
PainterJohn
Well Known Member
Building a 6 now.. cant talk about any other aircraft i am working on... Ya know since this is a 100% Vans only site
Last edited:
jonbakerok
Well Known Member
Yup
Yup. I also pointed out that the 9 is bumpier in turbulence.
But the quote you snipped refers to my comments about tail wagging, not bumps, in turbulence. I happen to think tail wagging is more influenced by CG than rudder size, and neither of those have any thing to do with how bumpy the ride is.
Yup. I also pointed out that the 9 is bumpier in turbulence.
But the quote you snipped refers to my comments about tail wagging, not bumps, in turbulence. I happen to think tail wagging is more influenced by CG than rudder size, and neither of those have any thing to do with how bumpy the ride is.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Yup! And the lighter the -9, the worse it is.
Still, I would build my light -9 the same way, if I were to do it all over again.
rocketbob
Well Known Member
Two months ago I replaced the rudder/VS on my -6 with the taller RV-8 VS/rudder. Nine years on the old rudder/VS, and now I can say with 100% certainty the tail wags more in turbulence with the taller rudder. The rudder isn't any lighter, but it is more effective. It actually was quite suprising, as I thought it would be a bit more stable in the bumps.
The difference in turbulance probably isn't as much as you might expect depending on the model.
The wing span of a RV-9 is longer than all of the other 2 seat side by side models but it is also narrower in cord.
The wing area difference between an RV-7 (121 sq ft.) and an RV-9 (124 sq. ft.) is only 3 sq ft. Not likely to be noticable by anyone. The difference compared to an RV-6 (110 sq. ft.) is more and is probably enough to be noticed.
I agree that wing area has little to do with what is refered to as tail wag.
I is more relate to wing span, vertical tail area, and C.G.
BTW, on an RV with a bent trailing edge style rudder, the yaw stability and tendency for tail wag can be effected by whether the trailing edge bend has been completed properly (just like it has an effect on pitch stability and control force feed back from the elevators and ailerons).
Unless something was done to counter the difference, the heavier vertical and (counterbalanced) rudder are causing the C.G. to be further aft in any given flight condition. This may be effecting the yaw damping negatively more the the bigger tail does positively.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
Just a quick comment. At one time, before my 6A was flying, you thought it might fly more like a truck in comparison to some lighter models including the 9. Afterall, it has an 0360 & Hartzell constant speed prop.
As it turns out, it has a "zippy" sporty feel. Lighter on the ailerons, and more "sports car" compared to the 9. It also climbs faster than a 0360 C/S equipped 9, and is capable of flying 20 knots faster. You can definately tell the difference in accelleration & climb rate between the two models.
It's differemt than an RV3/4, but nothing like a truck!
L.Adamson ---- RV6A
Bought it!
I expect some of the contributors to this thread would like to know that I went ahead and purchased the second hand RV-6 tail kit I mentioned. Some of the posts in this thread have contributed directly to me making that decision, though as Rick said, I have thought about it a lot.
It is quite an old kit, dating back to 1993, and so is a ?classic small tail?. Having an old classic sort of sits with me well and in light of some of the comments in this thread may well be the best option anyway.
Thanks again to you all for your contributions.
Cheers,
Andrew.
I expect some of the contributors to this thread would like to know that I went ahead and purchased the second hand RV-6 tail kit I mentioned. Some of the posts in this thread have contributed directly to me making that decision, though as Rick said, I have thought about it a lot.
It is quite an old kit, dating back to 1993, and so is a ?classic small tail?. Having an old classic sort of sits with me well and in light of some of the comments in this thread may well be the best option anyway.
Thanks again to you all for your contributions.
Cheers,
Andrew.
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Congratulations Andrew...
...and trust me...you'll have no regrets. Kindly post construction progress...thanks.
Have fun,
...and trust me...you'll have no regrets. Kindly post construction progress...thanks.
Have fun,
Craig, PM Sent. Cheers, Andrew.
ANDREW, Do send a letter to VAN'S and let them know that you purchased the kit, and give them the builders number so they will know who you are when you place an order. And also so they know that there is another 6 out there that they still need to support. And they will.
As an engineer, you will enjoy building the 6 way more than assembling a 7............
The six is what made Van's Aircraft........... It is a great airplane!!
As an engineer, you will enjoy building the 6 way more than assembling a 7............
The six is what made Van's Aircraft........... It is a great airplane!!
good decision
I am presently on the finishing kit of a similar vintage 6A, and while there are some days that I envy (and marvel at) the current "cleco and assemble" fully prepunched airframes, I have to say that I really enjoy and find a lot of satisfaction in the build process/challenges of this early kit.
Having said that, I suggest that you order a "Preview Plans Set" for the 7 from Van's - the quality of drawings is vastly improved from the 6, and the airframes are similar enough that you will probably find it of benefit to be able to refer to the 7 plans from time to time. As well, you maywant to incorporate some of the RV-7 changes from the 6 - the small firewall forward mounted battery, the 7 components for the fuel pump and front floor centre section (particularly if you go with fuel injection).
You will also find the Matroncis RV-List (as well as this Van's Airforce, of course) an invaluable resource. The RV-List has been around long enough that there is a lot of information in the archives addressing the particular challenges and issues of an RV-6 build, and the search engine is brilliant. And get a set of the Orndorff tapes (now DVD'S, I expect) documenting the building of a 6.
Finally, when you find youself wishing the thing was all prepunched, remember that the prepunched airframes only get you so far - once on to systems, electrical, engine, cowl, canopy, we're all facing the same challenges.
Enjoy the build!
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada
RV-6A finishing kit.
I am presently on the finishing kit of a similar vintage 6A, and while there are some days that I envy (and marvel at) the current "cleco and assemble" fully prepunched airframes, I have to say that I really enjoy and find a lot of satisfaction in the build process/challenges of this early kit.
Having said that, I suggest that you order a "Preview Plans Set" for the 7 from Van's - the quality of drawings is vastly improved from the 6, and the airframes are similar enough that you will probably find it of benefit to be able to refer to the 7 plans from time to time. As well, you maywant to incorporate some of the RV-7 changes from the 6 - the small firewall forward mounted battery, the 7 components for the fuel pump and front floor centre section (particularly if you go with fuel injection).
You will also find the Matroncis RV-List (as well as this Van's Airforce, of course) an invaluable resource. The RV-List has been around long enough that there is a lot of information in the archives addressing the particular challenges and issues of an RV-6 build, and the search engine is brilliant. And get a set of the Orndorff tapes (now DVD'S, I expect) documenting the building of a 6.
Finally, when you find youself wishing the thing was all prepunched, remember that the prepunched airframes only get you so far - once on to systems, electrical, engine, cowl, canopy, we're all facing the same challenges.
Enjoy the build!
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada
RV-6A finishing kit.
pierre smith
Well Known Member
I have the free Orndorff tapes, Andrew...
...if you'll just email me an address and you can have 'em. In the videos, he talks you through the stages of building your -6.
pierrejs at bellsouth dot net.
Regards,
...if you'll just email me an address and you can have 'em. In the videos, he talks you through the stages of building your -6.
pierrejs at bellsouth dot net.
Regards,
Oh, and I forgot,
the Frank Justice notes, (John Hovan's web site) and Frank van der Hulst's "Bunny's Guide" (both linked on the RV List), are also invaluable resources for building a 6.
Sam Buchanan's web site RV-6 builder's log is a really good resource as well.
And of course, this site!
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada,
RV-6A finishing kit
the Frank Justice notes, (John Hovan's web site) and Frank van der Hulst's "Bunny's Guide" (both linked on the RV List), are also invaluable resources for building a 6.
Sam Buchanan's web site RV-6 builder's log is a really good resource as well.
And of course, this site!
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada,
RV-6A finishing kit
RV6 0-320 Performance
Hi Guys
Not being the builder type having two left hands and absolutely no patience I ended my drooling and purchased an RV6A from the US. I am having it shipped out as we speak to South Africa. N447JM.
Its fitted with a 0-320 with a fixed pitch sensenich. I was just wondering what sort of cruise speeds I can expect. I know the guys here in similar configs are getting about 160 kts TAS. Is that about right. I know that when you talk to people about their planes they always add a few knotts on to their cruise speeds.
I cant wait for it to get here and start burning fuel.
Shawn
Hi Guys
Not being the builder type having two left hands and absolutely no patience I ended my drooling and purchased an RV6A from the US. I am having it shipped out as we speak to South Africa. N447JM.
Its fitted with a 0-320 with a fixed pitch sensenich. I was just wondering what sort of cruise speeds I can expect. I know the guys here in similar configs are getting about 160 kts TAS. Is that about right. I know that when you talk to people about their planes they always add a few knotts on to their cruise speeds.
I cant wait for it to get here and start burning fuel.
Shawn
Some Progress.
For those that followed this thread, Pierre asked me to post progress. Well, here it is. This is not an exciting post and is intended for consumption by those who helped me out when this thread was new and is a bit of a nuts and bolts post. It may serve as reminiscing for those who built their RV6s many years ago.
The tail kit I purchased was partly built with the tailplane almost finished and the fin frame assembled, but not skinned. I really wanted to get started and doing remedial work on the tailplane was not what I wanted to do, nor did I think it was a good place to start. The clear choice for me was the right hand elevator, so that surface lead the pack, but I?ve carried on with similar jobs across the elevators and rudder as they arose. To date I?ve assembled the elevator and rudder frames, (except attaching the tip ribs) and I?ve attached all the stiffeners to both elevator skins and the rudder skin. The skins are ready for the trailing edge bend except the left elevator as I want to update to the late model style trim mount and have to purchase the parts from Vans. I have discovered what is going to drive me nuts most of all about this project and that is the dimpling. What a tedious pain the %&*%$#. If I knew for sure it wouldn't make much difference to the speed, I would use universal head rivets on the empenage and fuselage.
The kit, being a bit old has the RV4 elevator horns, which are shorter than those specified on the drawings, so I am having to make some new/rework the old ones. Just as well I have a full half sheet of .040 4130 sheet skulling around! Similarly the material to make the spar doublers wasn't present, so I delved into my stock. Looking ahead I have been going through the wing drawings looking at the various parts and I concluded you could nearly make the aeroplane out of scrap!
Back to the tailplane, it goes back a bit. The hinges are aluminium and these were changed to steel fairly early in the piece on the RV6, so I have chosen to replace them with steel ones. Also the hinges on the tailplane were not positioned correctly. The rear spar was not riveted to the skin so removing it was easy. This revealed a few more gems lurking inside. I won?t detail activity to date, but many will understand when I say it is parked, pending a few decisions???..
The fin has been easier in this respect. The previous builder had got the hang of things a bit better by then. But then so have I! I almost completely disassembled the frame and removed the hinges. I?ve made new 4130 hinges and drilled them off to the old holes. I can start and look at putting things back together now.
I am very lucky. One friend had a jig he made up to cut the taper on the control surface stiffeners with his table saw and he?s also lent me his back-riveting plate. I've borrowed the late model drawings from another, and he has offered the trailing edge bender he made and the hardwood blocks he made for the trim tab. I think I can get the Vee jigs for assembling the control surfaces from the first friend. So all this should speed things up...
Pierre kindly sent me the Orndorff tapes, I?ve only watched a couple of tapes so far, having to compete with my young kids for TV time to play them. But what I have watched so far was invaluable as there are a few things like back riveting which we don?t do on Cessnas which was good to see being done. So thanks again Pierre. I?ve made contact with another poster here from New Zealand also building an RV6. Turns out we more or less work for the same company. Craig is a little more advanced than me, and now has an entire kit, except for the finishing kit, having imported a pre-owned fuselage kit from the US.
I am thoroughly enjoying the fabrication, marking out parts, cutting material, drilling holes and generally doing all those things you don?t do so much of with a pre-punched kit. For me the money spent versus the enjoyment gained and the hours occupied is far better value than golf, going to the movies, renting a DVD or anything else I can think of.
I?m not keeping a close track of RV activity here in New Zealand, but a new RV6 has recently flown in Canterbury, an RV9A was imported recently from the US, the first one to fly here. I happened to walk into a maintenance hangar last week and a newly imported RV3 was being put together. And at the end of this month a national RV fly-in is being held at Motueka, that location being around the middle of the country. The organiser counts 17 RVs going so far, which is a big deal here.
I still wonder if I?m doing the right thing, but every time I analyse it, I come right on back to the RV6.
Cheers,
Andrew.
For those that followed this thread, Pierre asked me to post progress. Well, here it is. This is not an exciting post and is intended for consumption by those who helped me out when this thread was new and is a bit of a nuts and bolts post. It may serve as reminiscing for those who built their RV6s many years ago.
The tail kit I purchased was partly built with the tailplane almost finished and the fin frame assembled, but not skinned. I really wanted to get started and doing remedial work on the tailplane was not what I wanted to do, nor did I think it was a good place to start. The clear choice for me was the right hand elevator, so that surface lead the pack, but I?ve carried on with similar jobs across the elevators and rudder as they arose. To date I?ve assembled the elevator and rudder frames, (except attaching the tip ribs) and I?ve attached all the stiffeners to both elevator skins and the rudder skin. The skins are ready for the trailing edge bend except the left elevator as I want to update to the late model style trim mount and have to purchase the parts from Vans. I have discovered what is going to drive me nuts most of all about this project and that is the dimpling. What a tedious pain the %&*%$#. If I knew for sure it wouldn't make much difference to the speed, I would use universal head rivets on the empenage and fuselage.
The kit, being a bit old has the RV4 elevator horns, which are shorter than those specified on the drawings, so I am having to make some new/rework the old ones. Just as well I have a full half sheet of .040 4130 sheet skulling around! Similarly the material to make the spar doublers wasn't present, so I delved into my stock. Looking ahead I have been going through the wing drawings looking at the various parts and I concluded you could nearly make the aeroplane out of scrap!
Back to the tailplane, it goes back a bit. The hinges are aluminium and these were changed to steel fairly early in the piece on the RV6, so I have chosen to replace them with steel ones. Also the hinges on the tailplane were not positioned correctly. The rear spar was not riveted to the skin so removing it was easy. This revealed a few more gems lurking inside. I won?t detail activity to date, but many will understand when I say it is parked, pending a few decisions???..
The fin has been easier in this respect. The previous builder had got the hang of things a bit better by then. But then so have I! I almost completely disassembled the frame and removed the hinges. I?ve made new 4130 hinges and drilled them off to the old holes. I can start and look at putting things back together now.
I am very lucky. One friend had a jig he made up to cut the taper on the control surface stiffeners with his table saw and he?s also lent me his back-riveting plate. I've borrowed the late model drawings from another, and he has offered the trailing edge bender he made and the hardwood blocks he made for the trim tab. I think I can get the Vee jigs for assembling the control surfaces from the first friend. So all this should speed things up...
Pierre kindly sent me the Orndorff tapes, I?ve only watched a couple of tapes so far, having to compete with my young kids for TV time to play them. But what I have watched so far was invaluable as there are a few things like back riveting which we don?t do on Cessnas which was good to see being done. So thanks again Pierre. I?ve made contact with another poster here from New Zealand also building an RV6. Turns out we more or less work for the same company. Craig is a little more advanced than me, and now has an entire kit, except for the finishing kit, having imported a pre-owned fuselage kit from the US.
I am thoroughly enjoying the fabrication, marking out parts, cutting material, drilling holes and generally doing all those things you don?t do so much of with a pre-punched kit. For me the money spent versus the enjoyment gained and the hours occupied is far better value than golf, going to the movies, renting a DVD or anything else I can think of.
I?m not keeping a close track of RV activity here in New Zealand, but a new RV6 has recently flown in Canterbury, an RV9A was imported recently from the US, the first one to fly here. I happened to walk into a maintenance hangar last week and a newly imported RV3 was being put together. And at the end of this month a national RV fly-in is being held at Motueka, that location being around the middle of the country. The organiser counts 17 RVs going so far, which is a big deal here.
I still wonder if I?m doing the right thing, but every time I analyse it, I come right on back to the RV6.
Cheers,
Andrew.
kiwi... Do VCR players play NTSC or PAL type tapes...
In one of my early goofs, I bought Orndorf RV6 Quick Build Tapes Part 1,2 and 3 in PAL format. Came to find out USA players don't use PAL format. Therefore these three tapes are available to anyone who wants PAL format. I am told that is common in Europe, perhaps also where you are. Free plus shipping.
In one of my early goofs, I bought Orndorf RV6 Quick Build Tapes Part 1,2 and 3 in PAL format. Came to find out USA players don't use PAL format. Therefore these three tapes are available to anyone who wants PAL format. I am told that is common in Europe, perhaps also where you are. Free plus shipping.
PAL
PAL is (was!) the standard VCR format in New Zealand, Australia, probably Britain. Last VCR I bought was PAL/NTSC so I could purchase aviation videos from the US and actually watch them!
Oh, bring back the 1990's!
Cheers,
Andrew.
PAL is (was!) the standard VCR format in New Zealand, Australia, probably Britain. Last VCR I bought was PAL/NTSC so I could purchase aviation videos from the US and actually watch them!
Oh, bring back the 1990's!
Cheers,
Andrew.
