What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV6 takeoff technique

G

grumman41

Active Member
I’d like advice on takeoff technique on the RVs. Pros and cons of bringing the tail “level” on takeoff run verses approximate takeoff pitch? I’m fairly low time at 150 tailwheel but it is in a wide range of aircraft, Pilatus tailwheel (piston) to J3 Cub.

I’ve noticed the techniques vary with HP, 50hp Cub verses 85hp, weight, etc. I welcome your input!
 
I'm assuming you have a new (to you) RV-6, congratulations on your new ride!

The RV-6 doesn't require any technique that is unique, it will basically fly itself off the ground shortly after you get all the throttle forward. There is no need to "level" the tail, just let the tailwheel leave the ground on its own and the plane will be ready to climb.

This is assuming solo flight. If heavy with passenger and full fuel the takeoff roll will be a little longer but there is no need to use different technique. Be prepared for much more P-factor during takeoff roll than you see with the lower powered aircraft.

It is interesting you are inquiring about takeoff, most new RV pilots are much more concerned with landing! :)
 
Departure technique

Sam Buchanan said:
The RV-6 doesn't require any technique that is unique, it will basically fly itself off the ground shortly after you get all the throttle forward. There is no need to "level" the tail, just let the tailwheel leave the ground on its own and the plane will be ready to climb.
Click to expand...

Agreed. (Assuming tail wheel RVs): gently lift the tail just off the ground and let her fly herself off. With the power/weight ratio these airplanes have they tend to get airborne quickly. I've seen many tailwheel aircraft (not just RVs but them as well) get the tail up level and then "jerk" it off the ground. :rolleyes: Not necessary: poor piloting technique and looks/feels bad. And a great way to become good friends with the Wilkerson Aircraft Tire Company.

Be prepared for much more P-factor during takeoff roll than you see with the lower powered aircraft.
Click to expand...

The RV tailwheel aircraft will refine your flying techniques as they teach you about themselves. If you jam the throttle forward, you will get to see what the weeds on the side of the runway look like! And what happens when you hit a runway light! SLOW, measured application of throttle with accompanying slow but decisive input of right rudder to match will help keep you centered on the runway and put a smile on your face! Finesse. Your airplane will teach you how it likes to be handled!

Wecome to The Community!:)
 
I’ve only owned for a few weeks but got some takeoffs and landings in. Not to sound arrogant but I’ve got a varied background so there weren’t any suprises with the RV. Besides the tailwheel aircraft I owned a AA1-B, I see a lot of similarities.
That being said, I like to get input as I understand exactly what the aircraft “wants”. Like the post above stated, the aircraft will let you know. I’ve learned with most aircraft that the basics are leaned really quickly, mastery can take five years or never accomplished. The J3 is a good example of an easy airplane to fly but very difficult to truly master.

I think the RV will be teaching me for a LONG time.
 
First, be sure the canopy is latched, trim is neutral, and flaps retracted before takeoff. You can use some flaps if you want, it may seem to get airborne slightly sooner, but will sacrifice climb down the road. Also if flaps are down, the tail gets really light and you may over pitch as you raise the tail. There’s also the distraction of retracting later or forgetting to retract and overspeeding them, for those reasons I recommend flaps retracted for takeoff.
As you apply throttle, it’ll take right rudder, I prefer when learning to initially keep the tail pinned back for this portion of the takeoff roll until about 30 knots, then neutralize the elevator or even slight forward to raise the tail wheel an inch or two off the ground and it’ll fly off. (It’ll take more right rudder as you raise the tail and lose ground contact with the tailwheel) Then continue to lower the nose in ground effect and build up 100 to 110 knots by the end of the runway and climb out. This will help with CHTs, give better visibility, plus’s it’s fun!

Another technique as you gain proficiency is to go full throttle and raise the tail at the same time, but you really have to be ready on the rudder as the plane will dart left if you aren’t on it.
 
Learning.....and learning.....and learning....

grumman41 said:
I’ve only owned for a few weeks but got some takeoffs and landings in. Not to sound arrogant but I’ve got a varied background so there weren’t any surprises with the RV. Besides the tailwheel aircraft I owned a AA1-B, I see a lot of similarities.
Click to expand...

An AA1-B! Wow! Don't see many of those around anymore! I wonder how many people had to Google that to see what it was!:p;) Yes, there are "some" similarities except when it comes to POWER! The RV has it; the AA1-B, not so much but can make a better pilot out of you because of that!:eek: There will be some people who will wonder how you converted an AA1-B to a tail wheel! They are sometimes confused....:confused: I think I can guess where your forum name comes from....;)

That being said, I like to get input as I understand exactly what the aircraft “wants”. Like the post above stated, the aircraft will let you know. I’ve learned with most aircraft that the basics are leaned really quickly, mastery can take five years or never accomplished. The J3 is a good example of an easy airplane to fly but very difficult to truly master.
Click to expand...

Mastery of any airplane is an ongoing process. My J-3 taught me how to fly! 65 hp at the elevations of Montana teaches a person quite a bit about energy management! I've had her since 1972 and if I thought I knew how to fly her, I'd quit flying. She performs much better in Colorado with a C-90 but I'm still figuring her out. ;) Don't tell her I said this but I think SuzieQ is easier to land!:)

I think the RV will be teaching me for a LONG time.
Click to expand...

You got that straight! She will make you a better pilot than you were flying other aircraft! Enjoy the classroom and your new instructor!
 
Before I bought my RV-6, I had (and still have) a North American T-6G. Designed to be purposefully demanding in preparation for flying WW-II fighters.

After flying it successfully for a while, I took a highly experienced T-6 pilot up with me, and asked him for comments.

He immediately, and properly, critiqued my technique for takeoff. I was in the habit of pushing forward on the stick fairly aggressively to raise the tail to "level", then "pull" the plane off after exceeding normal takeoff speed.

His advice, which I follow to this day, was to "ease" the tailwheel off the runway by only a few inches, and then hold that attitude and let the plane lift off when it is "ready". And, if you do it correctly, after lifting the tailwheel slightly off, as you accelerate, you will need less and less forward stick pressure to hold the tailwheel off. Then as the proper airspeed is reached, you will smoothly get airborne. You should be looking outside the cockpit the entire time. Don't look at the instruments!

Not only did I get airborne a bit sooner, I didn't swerve nearly as much during the takeoff roll.

I use the same technique in my RV-6.

YMMV, but it works for me.
 
Last edited:
The RV-6 is not difficult to take off and the deck angle you opt for largely gets determined by your runway. You'll soon get the feel for the best angle and work out that they just won't fly until they're ready to fly... trying to rotate too early will result in the aircraft settling back on the runway for a brief moment before it flys away, tail low. Then you have to get it up on the step to accelerate away... so best to avoid that if you can.

On an undulating runway I often find it beneficial to get the tail a little higher and make sure that the aircraft is firmly planted on the ground so it doesn't get bounced into the air too soon, avoiding those tail low and slow departures.

Practice will make perfect and if you study your performance and critique each take-off and landing you'll make improvements quickly.
 
and there is the short field, or bad surface technique… better be trained on suitable runways before, as everything happens pretty fast with that CSP and O-360 :)
Depending on the underground (loose stones, etc), add power whilst lining up, or lined-up stand still, let go of the brakes whilst applying full power, lift the tail ASAP, and a micro second later extend the flaps (manual on mine) one notch, then levitate off the ground at around 40KIAS, lower the nose to accelerate to a minimum of Vx, retract the flaps, start the climb at Vx if obstacle limited, Vy for a good climb, or higher according your habits, environmental, and/or engine cooling considerations.

Properly executed, medium weight, results in about 100m (300‘) ground run :D
 
The Vans designs would have to be the easiest of conventional U/C planes out there. I had around a 100 T/W and flew a Rocket, don’t know what all the fuss was about, pussy cats, all.:)
 
Dan 57 said:
and there is the short field, or bad surface technique… better be trained on suitable runways before, as everything happens pretty fast with that CSP and O-360 :)
Depending on the underground (loose stones, etc), add power whilst lining up, or lined-up stand still, let go of the brakes whilst applying full power, lift the tail ASAP, and a micro second later extend the flaps (manual on mine) one notch, then levitate off the ground at around 40KIAS, lower the nose to accelerate to a minimum of Vx, retract the flaps, start the climb at Vx if obstacle limited, Vy for a good climb, or higher according your habits, environmental, and/or engine cooling considerations.

Properly executed, medium weight, results in about 100m (300‘) ground run :D
Click to expand...

Dan,
Good technique. I have manual flaps too. I’ll try that on my 5000’ paved runway first. I like the 100 meters - sounds better than 300’.
 
Dan 57 said:
and there is the short field, or bad surface technique… better be trained on suitable runways before, as everything happens pretty fast with that CSP and O-360 :)
Depending on the underground (loose stones, etc), add power whilst lining up, or lined-up stand still, let go of the brakes whilst applying full power, lift the tail ASAP, and a micro second later extend the flaps (manual on mine) one notch, then levitate off the ground at around 40KIAS, lower the nose to accelerate to a minimum of Vx, retract the flaps, start the climb at Vx if obstacle limited, Vy for a good climb, or higher according your habits, environmental, and/or engine cooling considerations.

Properly executed, medium weight, results in about 100m (300‘) ground run :D
Click to expand...

Why not just start with the flaps at one notch or if electric extended a bit? The only reason I can see not to is fear of stone or fod damage to the flaps but that’s unlikely at one notch.
 
Last edited:
Roadjunkie1 said:
An AA1-B! Wow! Don't see many of those around anymore! I wonder how many people had to Google that to see what it was!:p;) Yes, there are "some" similarities except when it comes to POWER! The RV has it; the AA1-B, not so much but can make a better pilot out of you because of that!:eek: There will be some people who will wonder how you converted an AA1-B to a tail wheel! They are sometimes confused....:confused: I think I can guess where your forum name comes from....;)
Click to expand...

Nearly twenty years ago, there were many, many Grumman refugees (I was one) flooding into the Rv world as the airframes were wearing out and we were looking for replacements with better performance. My Yankee had the 160 hp conversion…gray handling, but still 40knots slower than a comparable RV-6….
 
Ironflight said:
Nearly twenty years ago, there were many, many Grumman refugees (I was one) flooding into the Rv world as the airframes were wearing out and we were looking for replacements with better performance. My Yankee had the 160 hp conversion…gray handling, but still 40knots slower than a comparable RV-6….
Click to expand...

Just guessing, but maybe because of the dynamic stability that had to be designed into the airframe to meet certification standards of the time for certified aircraft (and maybe now too?). Not sure, but something is different between certified airplanes, and EAB’s that look very similar. Increased HP for a modified Grumman doesn’t account for a 40K increase in cruise performance vs an RV6. Vans has eked out a performance improvement aerodynamically in an airplane that is easy to fly and still safe - “total performance”. I’m no professional in this area, but I have a lot of time in the 2-seat Grummans, and that seems like a logical reason to me after having a couple RV6’s and a few others.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top