Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Taxi Visibility in RV-7
- Thread starter skelrad
- Start date
LifeofReiley
Well Known Member
Forward vison will depend on many factors such as canopy type, pilot height, seat adjustment/cushion type etc. For the most part in a tail dragger you will need to clear forward on occasion or as you say S turns.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Rarely
I have not flown my RV-7 yet but have a little less than 1000 hrs in RV-4 / RV-6 alone. As long as you have the right cushion that puts your eyes as high as possible with head clearance you are fine.
Look a RV-7 is NOT a P-51, Vought Corsair F4U or even a Pitts. I know we all have these images of long nosed WWII fighter S-turning in the line up to a runway. This is not necessary in the RV-7; however following other aircraft in a taxi may be the only time I found any S-turning really useful or even slightly necessary. Usually after an air show in the departure rush, I would move up and stop at an angle to have a full view of the plane in front of me. 99% of the time I taxied my RV-4 straight. When following another aircraft I just gave them a little room so I saw most (not all) of the aircraft, in case they abruptly stop I had more room. Rudder sticks up pretty high so seeing a plane infront of you during taxi is not a chore.
Even a Piper J3 cub has a long nose in the way (solo form rear seat). However in this case you can just lean over and look out the open window like your dog does in a car. Rufff Rufff (Come to think of it if you have a sliding canopy you can lean out and get a view around the nose on the left side.)
An occasional S-turn may be prudent, but if you have a RV-7 making turns is very easy and responsive with the rudder. RV-"A" requires brake jabs, where the TD steers and easily tracks straight with no brakes. To S-turn push right, look left, push left look right straighten up. In the time you took to read that last sentence is the time it takes to do a little S-turn clearance turn. Don't think it takes massive turns like you see in the movies to get a good look. It is not like going around orange cones on an auto-cross slalom course.
Obviously the "slant range" over the nose to the ground while taxiing is going to be closer with a RV-"A" than a TD. However do you look at your feet when you walk?
(I suspect tri-gear pilots like to look down at their feet when they walk or for spare change. )
If you are an experienced tail dragger pilot you will love the view. I you are not an experienced tail dragger pilot the RV-7 is as docile a tail dragger you can find, with no bad habits and very good forward taxi view of any TG.
I can tell you are hunting around for info to make your TD or Model A decision. Either way you can't loose, but if you have NO taildragger time, go drop a few coins and get some dual in a Citabria. It will help you make your mind up and the time you log will go to your TD time and help one way or another: If you go TD you get needed experience; If you decide to go Model-A, you make a more informed and confident decision. I personally have flown only TD RV's. At the time I flew my first RV I had about 5000 hours total and 200 hours TD time in about 5 or 6 different TD's from Cub to T-6 Texan. The TG is more fun to taxi, takeoff and land. The Tri-gear is boring to me, plus the added benefit of less weight, less drag, less cost and easier construction. Good luck on the choice, but it is time to get going. No more questions, just building.
G, RV-4, RV-7
I have not flown my RV-7 yet but have a little less than 1000 hrs in RV-4 / RV-6 alone. As long as you have the right cushion that puts your eyes as high as possible with head clearance you are fine.
Look a RV-7 is NOT a P-51, Vought Corsair F4U or even a Pitts. I know we all have these images of long nosed WWII fighter S-turning in the line up to a runway. This is not necessary in the RV-7; however following other aircraft in a taxi may be the only time I found any S-turning really useful or even slightly necessary. Usually after an air show in the departure rush, I would move up and stop at an angle to have a full view of the plane in front of me. 99% of the time I taxied my RV-4 straight. When following another aircraft I just gave them a little room so I saw most (not all) of the aircraft, in case they abruptly stop I had more room. Rudder sticks up pretty high so seeing a plane infront of you during taxi is not a chore.
Even a Piper J3 cub has a long nose in the way (solo form rear seat). However in this case you can just lean over and look out the open window like your dog does in a car. Rufff Rufff (Come to think of it if you have a sliding canopy you can lean out and get a view around the nose on the left side.)
An occasional S-turn may be prudent, but if you have a RV-7 making turns is very easy and responsive with the rudder. RV-"A" requires brake jabs, where the TD steers and easily tracks straight with no brakes. To S-turn push right, look left, push left look right straighten up. In the time you took to read that last sentence is the time it takes to do a little S-turn clearance turn. Don't think it takes massive turns like you see in the movies to get a good look. It is not like going around orange cones on an auto-cross slalom course.
Obviously the "slant range" over the nose to the ground while taxiing is going to be closer with a RV-"A" than a TD. However do you look at your feet when you walk?
(I suspect tri-gear pilots like to look down at their feet when they walk or for spare change. ) If you are an experienced tail dragger pilot you will love the view. I you are not an experienced tail dragger pilot the RV-7 is as docile a tail dragger you can find, with no bad habits and very good forward taxi view of any TG.
I can tell you are hunting around for info to make your TD or Model A decision. Either way you can't loose, but if you have NO taildragger time, go drop a few coins and get some dual in a Citabria. It will help you make your mind up and the time you log will go to your TD time and help one way or another: If you go TD you get needed experience; If you decide to go Model-A, you make a more informed and confident decision. I personally have flown only TD RV's. At the time I flew my first RV I had about 5000 hours total and 200 hours TD time in about 5 or 6 different TD's from Cub to T-6 Texan. The TG is more fun to taxi, takeoff and land. The Tri-gear is boring to me, plus the added benefit of less weight, less drag, less cost and easier construction. Good luck on the choice, but it is time to get going. No more questions, just building.
G, RV-4, RV-7
Last edited:
Captain_John
Well Known Member
FWIW, I am a Citabria driver and a -7 builder. I flew a -6 today. It was the fist time I had flown a side by side RV. Of course, it was from the right side, but the view from the saddle is the same. I was totally unconcerned with the view or any lack therof!
The view never even came to mind, except until you mentioned it here tonight!
I consider it a non-issue. Build the tail dragger!
CJ
The view never even came to mind, except until you mentioned it here tonight!
I consider it a non-issue. Build the tail dragger!
CJ
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
gmcjetpilot said:
I love TD's as much as anyone. But.................. the side by side TD's just looked fat, bloated, stubby, or something that I can't put my finger on.
Actually I can. With short fat low aspect ratio wings, more "stubbiness" is visually noticable with the tail sitting down, which explains why I think the TD's look better in flight (from the side view), than the tri, where the nose gear seems out of place. Let's face it, RV's from underneath are not as spectacular looking as say a Lancair with it's fine tapered high aspect wings. I know, as I live under the pattern.
Actually the Lancair looks "swift" with NO gear hanging in the wind at all!Therfore, my decision was based on it's mission (cross-country) and looks on the ground, and the fact that my long time Air Force uncle suggested the nosewheel as being more practical. A B-36 would have looked awfully weird with a tailwheel, wouldn't it...
L.Adamson
edit --- RV6A
Kyle Boatright
Well Known Member
If you set up your cushions where you have minimum clearance between your head and the canopy, you never lose sight of the center line in a side by side tailwheel RV. In my -6, I sit pretty high, and can see the centerline beginning less than 50' from the aircraft.
dan
Well Known Member
Up a hill and at night
Ditto Kyle's response.
FWIW, 99.9% of the time (unless it's raining or really cold) I taxi with my tip-up canopy ajar (latch resting on the roll bar). This gives me room to stretch my neck and tilt my head back as I taxi...which raises eye level up enough to make a pretty big difference (for me). Forward visibility is not an issue in most conditions.
However, there are three scenarios where visibility can be poor...
One is when taxiing up a hill...unusual, but some airports have taxiways and hangar rows that are not level with the runway. As you reach the crest of the hill, you can't (or I can't, rather) see diddly ahead of me. It's only for an instant, and S-turning does solve the problem.
Another scenario is at night with no moon and a poorly lit environment. There is no doubt in my mind that the "A" model is far superior for nighttime taxi visibility. On my taildragger, one of the two Duckworks landing lights is aimed level (for when the tail is up) and the other is aimed down slightly (for when the tail is down). So I never truly benefit from both lights simultaneously. You could argue that I should aim both lights down and just change my flying technique -- fly it off in a 3-point attitude, and always land in a 3-point attitude. Something has to be compromised, and I've chosen what I consider to be the lesser of 2 evils...more comfortable technique, less lighting.
The third scenario is when taxiing in close staggered formation and you're #3. When I'm in this position I need to scooch up and tilt my head back and try to see lead's elevator when he or she gives the "go to trail" elevator wag. It's tough sometimes. Even so, this is a pretty rare and specific scenario that is the result of a choice (how close you're taxiing), rather than any limitation of the design!
Something to add -- I know of at least one RV-6 who uses a non-Van's tailwheel (I'm not sure of the mfr). It props the tail up another inch or more, and that has to improve visibility some.
Also, as my tailwheel has worn, the tail has lowered 1/2" or more. I can't honestly say I can tell, but it must make a tiny difference. Last time I checked, a brand new tailwheel from Van's is like 27 bucks.
That's my 2 cents. But you should definitely get a ride and decide for yourself how the visibility is. Where are you located?
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
Ditto Kyle's response.
FWIW, 99.9% of the time (unless it's raining or really cold) I taxi with my tip-up canopy ajar (latch resting on the roll bar). This gives me room to stretch my neck and tilt my head back as I taxi...which raises eye level up enough to make a pretty big difference (for me). Forward visibility is not an issue in most conditions.
However, there are three scenarios where visibility can be poor...
One is when taxiing up a hill...unusual, but some airports have taxiways and hangar rows that are not level with the runway. As you reach the crest of the hill, you can't (or I can't, rather) see diddly ahead of me. It's only for an instant, and S-turning does solve the problem.
Another scenario is at night with no moon and a poorly lit environment. There is no doubt in my mind that the "A" model is far superior for nighttime taxi visibility. On my taildragger, one of the two Duckworks landing lights is aimed level (for when the tail is up) and the other is aimed down slightly (for when the tail is down). So I never truly benefit from both lights simultaneously. You could argue that I should aim both lights down and just change my flying technique -- fly it off in a 3-point attitude, and always land in a 3-point attitude. Something has to be compromised, and I've chosen what I consider to be the lesser of 2 evils...more comfortable technique, less lighting.
The third scenario is when taxiing in close staggered formation and you're #3. When I'm in this position I need to scooch up and tilt my head back and try to see lead's elevator when he or she gives the "go to trail" elevator wag. It's tough sometimes. Even so, this is a pretty rare and specific scenario that is the result of a choice (how close you're taxiing), rather than any limitation of the design!
Something to add -- I know of at least one RV-6 who uses a non-Van's tailwheel (I'm not sure of the mfr). It props the tail up another inch or more, and that has to improve visibility some.
Also, as my tailwheel has worn, the tail has lowered 1/2" or more. I can't honestly say I can tell, but it must make a tiny difference. Last time I checked, a brand new tailwheel from Van's is like 27 bucks.
That's my 2 cents. But you should definitely get a ride and decide for yourself how the visibility is. Where are you located?
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
B-36? Ha Ha
Next your Uncle is going to tell you a P-51 would look better with a nose gear. If your Uncle asks you to sit on his lap and if you like gladiator movies RUN! (movie ref: Airplane)
As far as looks on the ground, universally most pilots think the TG looks sexier (even RV-A drivers), like it is ready to take off RV-6 sexy vs. the nose down cow grazing look of a RV-6A frumpy .
As far as TG's looking frumpy, I think you got it backwards, trikes got stuff poking out every where, with those foot steps and nose gear. You probably get excited to see a Piper Tri-Pacer (toad stool). RV Tri Pacer
Look it is OK to admit you have tailwheel envy. The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem. Why do you think there is a thread and poll in this forum titled: Do you have "tailwheel envy". Clearly almost half the nose diggers have TG envy from the poll. It is time to start a support group. Do you see a thread titled "do you have nose-gear envy"? No, there is a reason for that, WE LOVE OUR TAIL WHEEL, you know the tailwheel, the one you can steer, unlike a RV-trike that needs brake jabbing to steer, like a 80 year old grandma with one foot on the brake and another on the gas. A RV-trike is like a Buick; A RV-TG is like a Ferrari.
As far as a Tricycle geared RV being "more practical" and better for "cross country mission(s)", I am not sure how a going slower and worrying about landing on soft grass strips fits in to that, but than I am not your "long time air force uncle". What does that mean? Was Uncle AF a B-36 pilot in the 50's? Did he know Jimmy Stewart? "Flying high...In to the wild, blue, Yonder....... DoooDoDooo...."
No offense but nose draggers are boring to look at, taxi, takeoff and land. I fly a nose dragger at work, and yes a B757 would look funny and not be practical with a tail wheel. The flight attendants would complain about walking up hill. (The difference between a flight attendant and a jet engine is a jet engine stops whining in the gate.)
So to recap:
G. RV-4, RV-7
PS: The two movie refs are very good movies.
Just kidding about the RV's with nose wheelies; they only look a little fat, bloated and stubby, but get professional help on the TG envy thing, it is not healthy.
B-36!! Are you talking about a 1949 old, Convair B-36, Strategic Air command (movie Ref. 1955 Jimmy Stewart movie ), B-36, with 6 radial pushers and 4 jet engines? That is a stretch. What does that have to do with a little single engine prop plane? The B-36 Bomber analogy as a TG is weak, why not say SR71. Now that would be a funny looking TG'er. The B-36 is an old ugly nose dragger, so it is a good example of another homely nose gear plane. The P-51 is what a single engine prop plane should look like.L.Adamson said:I love TD's as much as anyone. But.................. the side by side TD's just looked fat, bloated, stubby, or something that I can't put my finger on.
Therefore, my decision was based on it's mission (cross-country) and looks on the ground, and the fact that my long time Air Force uncle suggested the nose wheel as being more practical. A B-36 would have looked awfully weird with a tail wheel, wouldn't it...L.Adamson --- RV6A
Next your Uncle is going to tell you a P-51 would look better with a nose gear. If your Uncle asks you to sit on his lap and if you like gladiator movies RUN!
(movie ref: Airplane) As far as looks on the ground, universally most pilots think the TG looks sexier (even RV-A drivers), like it is ready to take off RV-6 sexy vs. the nose down cow grazing look of a RV-6A frumpy .
As far as TG's looking frumpy, I think you got it backwards, trikes got stuff poking out every where, with those foot steps and nose gear. You probably get excited to see a Piper Tri-Pacer (toad stool). RV Tri Pacer
Look it is OK to admit you have tailwheel envy. The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem.
Why do you think there is a thread and poll in this forum titled: Do you have "tailwheel envy". Clearly almost half the nose diggers have TG envy from the poll. It is time to start a support group. Do you see a thread titled "do you have nose-gear envy"? No, there is a reason for that, WE LOVE OUR TAIL WHEEL, you know the tailwheel, the one you can steer, unlike a RV-trike that needs brake jabbing to steer, like a 80 year old grandma with one foot on the brake and another on the gas. A RV-trike is like a Buick; A RV-TG is like a Ferrari. As far as a Tricycle geared RV being "more practical" and better for "cross country mission(s)", I am not sure how a going slower and worrying about landing on soft grass strips fits in to that, but than I am not your "long time air force uncle". What does that mean? Was Uncle AF a B-36 pilot in the 50's? Did he know Jimmy Stewart? "Flying high...In to the wild, blue, Yonder....... DoooDoDooo...."
No offense but nose draggers are boring to look at, taxi, takeoff and land. I fly a nose dragger at work, and yes a B757 would look funny and not be practical with a tail wheel. The flight attendants would complain about walking up hill. (The difference between a flight attendant and a jet engine is a jet engine stops whining in the gate.)
So to recap:
RV, P-51 tail dragger = YES;
B757, SR71 (and B-36) tail dragger = NO
B757, SR71 (and B-36) tail dragger = NO
G. RV-4, RV-7
PS: The two movie refs are very good movies.
Just kidding about the RV's with nose wheelies; they only look a little fat, bloated and stubby, but get professional help on the TG envy thing, it is not healthy.
Last edited:
Jamie
Well Known Member
Hey, here's a movie quote for all the tailwheel snobs that like to criticize other builders:
From the movie Shrek: "Do you think maybe he's compensating for something?"
I find it to be completely unproductive to spend so much time criticizing the decisions of other builders. Preference of landing gear configuration is a totally subjective thing and there is clearly no right or wrong answer. I happen to agree with the poster above that the tri-gear aircraft look better than the taildraggers...but that's my opinion and anyone is free to disagree with me. The -6A in the picture above is absolutely gorgeous -- don't know what you see wrong with it. My only asthetic complaint with the -6A's is that they sit tail low on the ground. This has been changed in the -7A's and -9A's and they sit on the ground with the longerons pretty close to level.
Build the airplane YOU want to build and don't think of yourself as God's gift to aviation just because of your landing gear configuration. Come on....let's get back to slamming spam cans.
From the movie Shrek: "Do you think maybe he's compensating for something?"
I find it to be completely unproductive to spend so much time criticizing the decisions of other builders. Preference of landing gear configuration is a totally subjective thing and there is clearly no right or wrong answer. I happen to agree with the poster above that the tri-gear aircraft look better than the taildraggers...but that's my opinion and anyone is free to disagree with me. The -6A in the picture above is absolutely gorgeous -- don't know what you see wrong with it. My only asthetic complaint with the -6A's is that they sit tail low on the ground. This has been changed in the -7A's and -9A's and they sit on the ground with the longerons pretty close to level.
Build the airplane YOU want to build and don't think of yourself as God's gift to aviation just because of your landing gear configuration. Come on....let's get back to slamming spam cans.
Highflight
Well Known Member
gmcjetpilot said:
Are you sure you don't have "car" envy?
Features on cars are very often chosen on emotion so maybe that's it. You know, like shiny wheels, and window tint you can't see out from at night, and an 8-Ball as a shifter knob and dangling CD's from the rear view mirror.
But aircraft are more often chosen for their mission and utility.
So while I might build a taildragger if I were to build a radio control model of an RV based on "looks" alone, my real one will be a tri-gear, notably because Van himself says the tri-gear handles just as well on grass as the taildragger (due to the smallish wheels on both) and the difference in speed between the two is just 2mph which I will more than make up for with a SamJames Cowl and Plenum, and I would much rather see where I'm taxiing if I have a choice.
This kind of reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live skit where Billy Crystal would say that "It's better to look good than to (land) good".
I mean, really; much too much emotion here about something that has no realy significance other than for each individual who decides what they want to build... and builds it that way.
I guess I better seek help because, nope, no tail wheel envy at all.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
gmc--- don't worry....
Yes, I'm talking about the B-36. Strategic Air Command is my favorite aviation movie of all time, and own it on a laser disk. That B-36 just sounds awsome as it fly's over the baseball field! Besides, Jimmy Stewart knew from actual experience, how to operate controls correctly in a movie!
I was born shortly after WWII, and my father flew Stearmans, many different rag wing tail draggers & owned a BT-13
My uncle, who is now in his 80's, flew the KC97 & KC135
Korea & Vietnam.
My (as well as my wife's) favorite airplane IS the P-51D. I made it a point to get some backseat time (where the fuselage tank once resided) in a 1944 P-51D. We have attended the Reno Air Races numerous times, and I personally knew two former P-51 racing pilots who were both unfortunately killed at Reno. Rick Brickert & Gary Levitz
I prefer the Cub over the Tri-Pacer
Favorite WWII bomber is the B-29 ( castoring nose wheeler)
As I've said, the tail wheeling RV's do not fit my "mission".
We have numerous backcountry strips where I live, that are mostly ex-uranium mines along the Colorado River. Strips are gravel, sand, and dirt. My preference is a high wing tail dragger such as an Aviat Huskey or Maule. I do have several years in a Pitts S2B aerobatic time for tailwheel experience, as well as the Maule. Deciding which way to go with the 6, as far as gear goes, took several years.
Favorite quarter-scale R/C's were usually taildraggers...
6A's still look better than the pudgy 6 on the ground, and retracts still look better all around!
L.Adamson
gmcjetpilot said:
Yes, I'm talking about the B-36. Strategic Air Command is my favorite aviation movie of all time, and own it on a laser disk. That B-36 just sounds awsome as it fly's over the baseball field! Besides, Jimmy Stewart knew from actual experience, how to operate controls correctly in a movie!
I was born shortly after WWII, and my father flew Stearmans, many different rag wing tail draggers & owned a BT-13
My uncle, who is now in his 80's, flew the KC97 & KC135
Korea & Vietnam.
My (as well as my wife's) favorite airplane IS the P-51D. I made it a point to get some backseat time (where the fuselage tank once resided) in a 1944 P-51D. We have attended the Reno Air Races numerous times, and I personally knew two former P-51 racing pilots who were both unfortunately killed at Reno. Rick Brickert & Gary Levitz
I prefer the Cub over the Tri-Pacer
Favorite WWII bomber is the B-29 ( castoring nose wheeler)
As I've said, the tail wheeling RV's do not fit my "mission".
We have numerous backcountry strips where I live, that are mostly ex-uranium mines along the Colorado River. Strips are gravel, sand, and dirt. My preference is a high wing tail dragger such as an Aviat Huskey or Maule. I do have several years in a Pitts S2B aerobatic time for tailwheel experience, as well as the Maule. Deciding which way to go with the 6, as far as gear goes, took several years.
Favorite quarter-scale R/C's were usually taildraggers...
6A's still look better than the pudgy 6 on the ground, and retracts still look better all around!
L.Adamson
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Sweet
G
P.S.: For the other two posts Jamie D. Painter, Vern Wanzong, geeeeeeeeee, it was all in fun and a joke. L. Adamson?s original comment about TG?s looking fat and bloated was also funny and I did not take it seriously. We are just poking fun at each other. I think the Tricycle RV's looks fine, just not as sexy as a RV TG in my opinion. For me it is never about looks, car or airplane, it is about the facts and specs. Regardless of ramp appeal, the TG weighs less, cost less, is faster, easier to build, allows 4 into 1 exhaust, has no gear fitting intrusion into cockpit area, has more prop to ground clearance for taxi, run-up and initial take-off roll and steers with rudder pedals not brakes. ALL TRUE and valid points, but in no way a put down or to take away from tri-cycle airplane. Other wise it is all good.
Ha Ha Ha Ha, Good on you, buddy, I would have loved to hear all those engines (168 cylinders and 4 jet engines) at one time L.L.Adamson said:6A's still look better than the pudgy 6 on the ground, and retracts still look better all around!
G
P.S.: For the other two posts Jamie D. Painter, Vern Wanzong, geeeeeeeeee, it was all in fun and a joke. L. Adamson?s original comment about TG?s looking fat and bloated was also funny and I did not take it seriously. We are just poking fun at each other. I think the Tricycle RV's looks fine, just not as sexy as a RV TG in my opinion. For me it is never about looks, car or airplane, it is about the facts and specs. Regardless of ramp appeal, the TG weighs less, cost less, is faster, easier to build, allows 4 into 1 exhaust, has no gear fitting intrusion into cockpit area, has more prop to ground clearance for taxi, run-up and initial take-off roll and steers with rudder pedals not brakes. ALL TRUE and valid points, but in no way a put down or to take away from tri-cycle airplane. Other wise it is all good.
Last edited:
Jamie
Well Known Member
Hey....went back and read your post and yeah...I guess I missed the humor in there...so all is good. You do make valid points about about some of the advantages of the taildragger, but there are also very many advantages to the tricycle gear -- cheaper to insure (by as much as 12%, according to who you ask), better visibility while taxing, all the usual tricycle gear advantages of dynamic stability, familiarity for many pilots (most everyone who has learned to fly in the last 15 years has learned in tricycle-geared airplanes). I would tend to disagree about the tri-gear being slower...since there are a great number of -A models that are actually FASTER than another equally equipped (FWF) taildragger. So basically there are so many variables involved that it's hard to say one airplane will be faster than another just because it's a taildragger. But...I will concede that your particular plane will be a little faster if it were built as a TD...but not enough to matter. We're talking a couple MPH here...which over a 3 hour flight equates to 6 miles...which is really insignificant.
All the best,
All the best,
David-aviator
Well Known Member
I guess I better seek help because, nope, no tail wheel envy at all. [/QUOTE]
Same here.
I've built and flown both types and find the trike more stable, civilized and useful.
A friend with the RV-4 will not fly into and out the grass stip I use with the RV-7A. Could be he's smarter than me
dd
RV-7A N707DD
[/QUOTE]Same here.
I've built and flown both types and find the trike more stable, civilized and useful.
A friend with the RV-4 will not fly into and out the grass stip I use with the RV-7A. Could be he's smarter than me
dd
RV-7A N707DD
Martorious
Member
gmcjetpilot said:
Except the 8, those gear towers on the 8 are quite intrusive. Also I've heard that the A models may have a slight advantage over the TG on stol because the AOA when the tail is on the ground is less than the optimum AOA for TO, while the A's can rotate into a slightly more agressive AOA. My reasoning for the 8A anyway.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Martorious said:
Van's tried to talk me out of building my -9 because they said the -9A was a better short/rough field aircraft. I'm still trying to figure that one out.
As for rotating and a tricycle gear to a slightly aggressive AOA, I'm not so sure why that would be. If you over rotated a tri-gear the tail will hitcausing damage. Not so with a TW where the TW will hit the ground. Truth is, I've never hit the tail on rotation after lifting the TW. It might be possible but I've never done it.
Typical take off procedure for a TW aircraft is to lift the tail early in the roll, leave it slightly tail low then rotate, just like in a tri-gear. Some TW aircraft might call for a three point takeoff for short / rough fields but I don't know of any.
Maybe the high AOA during the initial takeoff roll is what lengthens the distance, I don't really know.
Martorious
Member
clarification
Maybe the way I said it wasn't clear. What I meant was that with the main gear on the ground, the A will assume a more nose up attitude by lifting the nose than the TG can achieve with the tail on the ground, thus can rotate earlier. I think this happens because the mains on the A models are further aft on the fuse, thus allowing more pivot before the tail hits the ground. Or at least that was what I've read. YMMV
Maybe the way I said it wasn't clear. What I meant was that with the main gear on the ground, the A will assume a more nose up attitude by lifting the nose than the TG can achieve with the tail on the ground, thus can rotate earlier. I think this happens because the mains on the A models are further aft on the fuse, thus allowing more pivot before the tail hits the ground. Or at least that was what I've read. YMMV
Last edited:
Novice approach to the stol question for the A
For landing, anyway, it seems that when the A has a better chance of getting stopped sooner. For a TD, you increase the angle of attack to get the tail wheel on the ground; that increases lift, right? On an A, putting the nose down decreases angle of attack and makes float much less likely, right?
That makes sense to me, anyway. For take-off, I wonder if there is any improvement because of lower drag. I remember a pilot telling me long ago that to do a very short take off, he would not apply flaps until he was already into the TO roll. That didn't seem real bright to me, changing configurations at that point, but it calls to mind the drag issue. ...Or he could have been a crazy maniac, too.
For landing, anyway, it seems that when the A has a better chance of getting stopped sooner. For a TD, you increase the angle of attack to get the tail wheel on the ground; that increases lift, right? On an A, putting the nose down decreases angle of attack and makes float much less likely, right?
That makes sense to me, anyway. For take-off, I wonder if there is any improvement because of lower drag. I remember a pilot telling me long ago that to do a very short take off, he would not apply flaps until he was already into the TO roll. That didn't seem real bright to me, changing configurations at that point, but it calls to mind the drag issue. ...Or he could have been a crazy maniac, too.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Stol
I am all for promoting the advantages of a TG (and ignoring the benefits of Tri gear, tee-hee), but STOL may not be one of them. I agree it should be better from geometry and aerodynamic standpoints; however for the average pilot's to explore that extreme corner of the envelope is not likely. Most of us don't get near the limits of performance**. So as for STOL I concede a wash.
Look at Van's spec, no difference in takeoff and landing distance between Tri and TG.
HOWEVER look at the distances!
Take off: 250 feet, Landing: 300 feet (solo, I assume zero wind ground roll). I consider myself a good stick, and can approach these numbers, but tend to add a few MPH for margin.
Take off is not an issue but landing in 300 feet consistently, that takes a little technique. I can't tell you have many RV's I have seen landing at my old home field and floating down the runway, rolling out over ++1000 feet down the road.
True STOL is there but most don't explore the limits to get closes to any difference between gear config. I have gone into real short mountain strips in my RV-4, I have landed and turned off in 200 feet but there was wind. True 300-foot landings (obstruction approach) in no wind is short stuff in a plane that goes 200mph.
G
*(I flew a demo flight with Van in the original RV-6 about 18 years ago off his home strip in North Plains. It was my first RV ride. Van "the man" made the landing and it was in his back driveway to his hanger next to his house and he made it look easy! Short. At that time his operations was out of the hanger next to his house, before it moved to down town North Plains, before Aurora, OR)
I am all for promoting the advantages of a TG (and ignoring the benefits of Tri gear, tee-hee
), but STOL may not be one of them. I agree it should be better from geometry and aerodynamic standpoints; however for the average pilot's to explore that extreme corner of the envelope is not likely. Most of us don't get near the limits of performance**. So as for STOL I concede a wash. Look at Van's spec, no difference in takeoff and landing distance between Tri and TG.
HOWEVER look at the distances!
Take off: 250 feet, Landing: 300 feet (solo, I assume zero wind ground roll). I consider myself a good stick, and can approach these numbers, but tend to add a few MPH for margin.
Take off is not an issue but landing in 300 feet consistently, that takes a little technique. I can't tell you have many RV's I have seen landing at my old home field and floating down the runway, rolling out over ++1000 feet down the road.
True STOL is there but most don't explore the limits to get closes to any difference between gear config. I have gone into real short mountain strips in my RV-4, I have landed and turned off in 200 feet but there was wind. True 300-foot landings (obstruction approach) in no wind is short stuff in a plane that goes 200mph.
G
*(I flew a demo flight with Van in the original RV-6 about 18 years ago off his home strip in North Plains. It was my first RV ride. Van "the man" made the landing and it was in his back driveway to his hanger next to his house and he made it look easy! Short. At that time his operations was out of the hanger next to his house, before it moved to down town North Plains, before Aurora, OR)
Last edited:
David-aviator
Well Known Member
N941WR said:
Van's may know more about their airplanes than most of us.
The trike WILL get off the ground sooner than the TD simply because airplane assumes a flying attitude sooner. I've done a full aft stick take off sooner than expected while trying to adjust a CS prop off of wet soft grass. TD energy is lost getting up to speed to lift the tail. A Super Cub can lift the tail before starting the roll, but not so in an RV.
Tail draggers look cool but they do not out perform the trike except maybe for a knot or 2 in cruise.
dd
RV-7A
Subby H6 MT Prop
I flew a simulated combat mission today seeking terrorist sky spies. None found but I will keep looking.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Prove it TOP GUN
It takes "energy" to push the tail down on a trike because the plane is NOT sitting at a take-off angle of attack, and the arm from the main gear to elevator is shorter, taking more "energy" to rotate the aircraft. A heavy engine will aggravate this. Again Van's states that there is no diff in takeoff distance.
On a TD, why lift the TAIL? You are already in a take off angle of attack with a tail wheel. You do lift slightly just to reduce rolling drag. Technique, experience and skill makes the difference, not the gear Maverick. Van's comment is the average pilot has better luck with a trike not because of superior geometry but because of easier handling which adds to their confidence, which you are not lacking dd.
Also, not to pick on you dd, your Subaru H6 RV will have an empty weight about 100lbs more, most over the nose wheel, than a similarly powered RV with a Lycoming. Your T/O and Landing runs will be longer. Also with a $10,000 MT prop spinning next to the rocks with bonded on erosion guards, if damaged, would need an expensive trip to Germany to get fixed. If I where you I would stay off the short rough stuff, BUT when you get-er done , let me know. We have a fly off/ landing contest off a soft field against my RV-7/O-360A1A/Hartzell. The Hartzell BTW can take rock dings and be fixed on the plane with file.
G
"...TD simply ...assumes a flying attitude sooner." Prove it. That is a stretch of your imagination. Have you actually seen a RV?David-aviator said:Van's may know more about their airplanes than most of us.
The trike WILL get off the ground sooner than the TD simply because airplane assumes a flying attitude sooner. [snip] TD energy is lost getting up to speed to lift the tail. dd RV-7A
I flew a simulated combat mission today seeking terrorist sky spies.
It takes "energy" to push the tail down on a trike because the plane is NOT sitting at a take-off angle of attack, and the arm from the main gear to elevator is shorter, taking more "energy" to rotate the aircraft. A heavy engine will aggravate this. Again Van's states that there is no diff in takeoff distance.
On a TD, why lift the TAIL? You are already in a take off angle of attack with a tail wheel. You do lift slightly just to reduce rolling drag. Technique, experience and skill makes the difference, not the gear Maverick. Van's comment is the average pilot has better luck with a trike not because of superior geometry but because of easier handling which adds to their confidence, which you are not lacking dd.
Also, not to pick on you dd, your Subaru H6 RV will have an empty weight about 100lbs more, most over the nose wheel, than a similarly powered RV with a Lycoming. Your T/O and Landing runs will be longer. Also with a $10,000 MT prop spinning next to the rocks with bonded on erosion guards, if damaged, would need an expensive trip to Germany to get fixed. If I where you I would stay off the short rough stuff, BUT when you get-er done , let me know. We have a fly off/ landing contest off a soft field against my RV-7/O-360A1A/Hartzell. The Hartzell BTW can take rock dings and be fixed on the plane with file.
G
Last edited:
mlw450802
Well Known Member
Just to help corroborate your assertion, I also read in one of the RVators news letters that Van thought the Trikes might do short field take offs slightly better than the tail draggers due to the fact you can get a steeper angle of attack earlier.David-aviator said:Van's may know more about their airplanes than most of us.
The trike WILL get off the ground sooner than the TD simply because airplane assumes a flying attitude sooner. I've done a full aft stick take off sooner than expected while trying to adjust a CS prop off of wet soft grass. TD energy is lost getting up to speed to lift the tail. A Super Cub can lift the tail before starting the roll, but not so in an RV.
Tail draggers look cool but they do not out perform the trike except maybe for a knot or 2 in cruise.
dd
RV-7A
Subby H6 MT Prop
I flew a simulated combat mission today seeking terrorist sky spies. None found but I will keep looking.
The max angle is pretty well fixed on the tail dragger until the mains are off.
The performance of either is undoubtedly impressive for most of us.
-Mike
David-aviator
Well Known Member
mlw450802 said:
It is. The RV is an absolute delight to fly....that's why so many pilots are buying and building them....can't think of another airplane so satisfying.
The discussion on TD vrs Trike is as old as aviation and almost as boring as politics.
I don't like them mostly because I was trained in the T-34/T-28/T-33/F-86. But I tried it. I am probably the only guy to build a -7A, wrecked it, rebuilt it to a -7, fly it, and convert it back to a -7A. It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of learning something new. And at this point in life, age 67, I have no desire whatever to fly a tail dragger after a life in trikes, all kinds of them, including most of the Boeings, and Douglas light twins.
If a tail dragger is your cup of tea, go for it. They look great and fly just as great. IF I had to do it for real, like this was the last world war and we RV guys were the last line of defense, I'd go for the -8 with auto 12 gauge shot guns under each wing. But only if we were flying off a large grass field as they did in WWI and I did not have land the damn thing in a cross wind.
dd
David-aviator
Well Known Member
gmcjetpilot said:
Also, not to pick on you dd, your Subaru H6 RV will have an empty weight about 100lbs more, most over the nose wheel, than a similarly powered RV with a Lycoming. Your T/O and Landing runs will be longer. Also with a $10,000 MT prop spinning next to the rocks with bonded on erosion guards, if damaged, would need an expensive trip to Germany to get fixed. If I where you I would stay off the short rough stuff, BUT when you get-er done , let me know. We have a fly off/ landing contest off a soft field against my RV-7/O-360A1A/Hartzell. The Hartzell BTW can take rock dings and be fixed on the plane with file.
G
George, I'm married to my wife and a grass runway at an airpark.
So far, the prop, which weighs just 31 lbs complete vrs your 55 lbs, is holding up fine...as you know, the Germans build 'em tough.
MT technology goes back to WWII.The Subby may not satisfy many guys, but it sure satisfies me. It starts easy all the time, is very smooth, has 7 main crank bearings (Lycoming has 3) does not leak oil, and runs just fine on any mogas even with its 10.7:1 compression ratio although 93 mogas is best.
I've had 2 Lycomings on previous airplanes. They're great engines - just a little old. The Subby is new and interesting for those inclined to try something new.
dd
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
I am looking for.......
. I think I am going to put a personal ad in, "Looking for good woman who loves planes, lives at a fly-in airpark, hanger a plus, send picture of air-strip and hanger." G
Was dieses ist! Weltkrieg zwei ! MT-Propeller celebrates its (Zwanzig f?nf) 25-Years Anniversary in Jan 2005. The company was founded in 1980 by Gerd Muehlbauer. Hartzell on the other hand goes back to 1875 and started making props, in 1914, for WW I planes. Do I win. MT props and Subbie are great. I drove a Subie for 12 years, great engines. The MT is too much money, but they are very nice.
I am jealousDavid-aviator said:
. I think I am going to put a personal ad in, "Looking for good woman who loves planes, lives at a fly-in airpark, hanger a plus, send picture of air-strip and hanger." GWas dieses ist! Weltkrieg zwei ! MT-Propeller celebrates its (Zwanzig f?nf) 25-Years Anniversary in Jan 2005. The company was founded in 1980 by Gerd Muehlbauer. Hartzell on the other hand goes back to 1875 and started making props, in 1914, for WW I planes. Do I win.
MT props and Subbie are great. I drove a Subie for 12 years, great engines. The MT is too much money, but they are very nice.
Last edited:
David-aviator
Well Known Member
gmcjetpilot said:I am jealous
Was dieses ist! Weltkrieg zwei ! MT-Propeller celebrates its (Zwanzig f?nf) 25-Years Anniversary in Jan 2005. The company was founded in 1980 by Gerd Muehlbauer. Hartzell on the other hand goes back to 1875 and started making props, in 1914, for WW I planes. Do I win.
You do not win, George, your research on MT did not go back far enough. From their web site:
"The blades of our variable pitch propellers are based on a proven design, which has been invented in the 30's by a group of top engineers in Berlin, Germany and was used on many European WWII aircrafts. Over the years the original design has been improved and above all modernized."
Jan Eggenfellner is a personal friend of MT's founder Gerd. He imports a prop designed for the Subby and we Egg customers get a special deal. They are still expensive but not that much over Van's Hartzell prices. The electric CS is not as quick as the hydraulic units, but guys are doing mild aerobatics with them be going to fixed pitch.
dd
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
The first homebuilt aircraft
I am kidding about MT. Many top acro guys use the MT. The light wood/composite design is very strong and light. I do worry a little about any non-homogeneous things on a prop, like the erosion guards bonded on, but they should last a long time with out maintenance if there is no trauma (prop strike). However I think all major repairs are sent back to the factory in Deutschland? That might add to the cost of ownership. Hey it is German, it is like a Porsche, it cost more. For auto conversions that can't accept a hydraulic prop, it is the only way to go. I would not hesitate to put one on for that application. G
"I am convinced that human flight
is both possible and practical."
Wilbur Wright, 1899
On December 17, 1903, Wright was right, man could fly.
The Wright's used a wind tunnel to figure out the best diameter, RPM and twist distribution on their prop, clever for 100 years ago in a garage. I will never complain about Van's drawings or plans. At least I did not have to carve my own prop. Now it seems that Hartzell was a decade late jumping on to the Prop making band wagon. G
What da I win, What da I win.David-aviator said:
I am kidding about MT. Many top acro guys use the MT. The light wood/composite design is very strong and light. I do worry a little about any non-homogeneous things on a prop, like the erosion guards bonded on, but they should last a long time with out maintenance if there is no trauma (prop strike). However I think all major repairs are sent back to the factory in Deutschland? That might add to the cost of ownership. Hey it is German, it is like a Porsche, it cost more. For auto conversions that can't accept a hydraulic prop, it is the only way to go. I would not hesitate to put one on for that application. GFirst aircraft prop was???? Anyone? Any takers?mlw450802 said:Apparently, in an exceptionally clever business decision, they waited until airplanes were developed...
-Mike
"I am convinced that human flight
is both possible and practical."
Wilbur Wright, 1899
On December 17, 1903, Wright was right, man could fly.
The Wright's used a wind tunnel to figure out the best diameter, RPM and twist distribution on their prop, clever for 100 years ago in a garage. I will never complain about Van's drawings or plans. At least I did not have to carve my own prop. Now it seems that Hartzell was a decade late jumping on to the Prop making band wagon.
G
Last edited:
