Buying an RV-6a/7a

[RotorAndWing]

More bull ****.

How many rants have people had against "garage built" airplanes?

Complete bull ****.

Ahh, just in time........

 

[RotorAndWing]

More bull ****.

How many rants have people had against "garage built" airplanes?

Complete bull ****.

So Larry, you avoided the main question:

Just curious, are their members on the VAF site that don't own an RV but another make (certified?) that go into inane rants about their favorite airplane and why it's superior to the RV?

Well?

 

[Geico266]

Ahh, just in time........

Just in time and never going away. Get over it, or get use to it.

 

[Geico266]

So Larry, you avoided the main question:



Well?

Start a new thread. I don't have to explain myself to an FAA Inspector. This thread is about buying an RV-6 or 7.

 

[Geico266]

And almost any comment that questions the RV's status as the be-all end-all to all GA problems is immediately labeled by the zealots as bashing.

Questioning is one thing, ganging up and bashing RV owners is quite another. No one ever said RV's are the end all. But right now experimentals are carrying GA forward. Don't start bashing me over that little factoid, call the FAA and dispute their recent stats.

I can't help it of you certified diehards tied your horse to the wrong wagon.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Start a new thread moron. This thread is about buying an RV-6 or 7.

Ah, personal attacks again, one of Larry's trademarks.

 

[Geico266]

Ah, personal attacks again, one of Larry's trademarks.

Seriously? That was name calling, not personal attacks.

Did you have trouble keeping the facts straight as an FAA Inspector also? Or did you just write guys up and hope what ever you threw at the wall stuck.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Seriously? That was name calling, not personal attacks.

Did you have trouble keeping the facts straight as an FAA Inspector also? Or did you just write guys up and hope what ever you threw at the wall stuck.

Wow, even more personal. Want to throw in something about being an Airbus pilot as well?

 

[Geico266]

If you coolaid drinking certified airplane drivers don't have anything constructive to add to a thread about buying an RV go start another anti RV thread.

Seriously, you guys are deleriously one sided in one eye, and blind in the other.

 

[Henning]

More bull ****.

How many rants have people had against "garage built" airplanes? I didn't start ranting about the negatives of certifieds, but there are 1,000's of posts here backing RV's, RV drivers are dangerous, RV drivers doing over head breaks, ect, ect.

Complete bull ****.

Are either of these proving untrue?

 

[Henning]

Start a new thread. I don't have to explain myself to an FAA Inspector. This thread is about buying an RV-6 or 7.

He wasn't asking you to explain yourself, he was asking you to describe activities on the Van's Airforce board, the name of which alone points towards Mittiesque delusions as do some of the paint jobs.

 

[kyleb]

Problem is it's the 'over zealous' folks that have the loudest voices and widest spread influence.

Who?

Geico pushing RV-10's? I don't see that as a safety concern. I guess he should push Bonanzas or PC-12's, which seem to be more popular choices.

Jay, pushing zoom climbs? He got talked (or beaten) off of that ledge.

That's two. One wasn't a safety issue and the other one was re-educated.

This whole is a disappointment to me. Several normally reasonable posters throwing sacks full of rocks when they should know better.

The RV fleet does have accidents. Occasionally, stupid accidents, but that rate is probably lower than most other high performance, aerobatic, STOL aircraft. You don't see VFR into IMC accidents in Pitts, because nobody flies a Pitts very far from home. You don't see aerobatic accidents in C-182's because the airplanes are not capable. You don't see short/grass field accidents from Mooneys, because Mooneys aren't operated in that environment. RV's operate in all of those environments and are subject to all of those risks. That doesn't make the aircraft or the pilots bad.

Beyond that, RV's are flown often. There are ~8,000 RV's out of ~200k GA aircraft in the States. That's 4% of the fleet (roughly). Go to your local field and see what portion of the actual flying the RV's do? More than 4%, I'd bet. The RV fleet is a young fleet. Shiny new airplanes get flown more than granddad's tired C-172 which he's kind of bored with and flies 20 hours a year. There aren't many RV ramp queens. So, again, RV's may suffer a disproportionate number of accidents compared to the fleet size, but I doubt it is disproportionate from an hours flown perspective. I don't see how that makes the airplanes or their pilots targets of the kind of crap I see here.

What was the last dumb or careless RV accident we've discussed? I honestly don't remember it. So why the tar, the feathers, and the generalizations? It makes no sense to me.

And to the OP. Bob Collins' aircraft, which was linked earlier in the thread, would probably be a good aircraft to look at. But there are a lot of RV's out there, so look at several before you make a decision.

 

[Geico266]

Are either of these proving untrue?

Neither one is proven any more true than certified planes.

Do you have a comment on buying an RV or are you bored and wanting to argue?

Again, how is beating down one aspect of GA ( the most successful and growing segment) helpful to GA? How is bashing RV's helpful to the OP?

I am passionate about what I fly. I am passionate about maintaining my aircraft. I am passionate about promoting flying. I don't care what you fly, why do you care what I fly?

 

[Henning]

Who?

Geico pushing RV-10's? I don't see that as a safety concern. I guess he should push Bonanzas or PC-12's, which seem to be more popular choices.

Jay, pushing zoom climbs? He got talked (or beaten) off of that ledge.

That's two. One wasn't a safety issue and the other one was re-educated.

This whole is a disappointment to me. Several normally reasonable posters throwing sacks full of rocks when they should know better.

The RV fleet does have accidents. Occasionally, stupid accidents, but that rate is probably lower than most other high performance, aerobatic, STOL aircraft. You don't see VFR into IMC accidents in Pitts, because nobody flies a Pitts very far from home. You don't see aerobatic accidents in C-182's because the airplanes are not capable. You don't see short/grass field accidents from Mooneys, because Mooneys aren't operated in that environment. RV's operate in all of those environments and are subject to all of those risks. That doesn't make the aircraft or the pilots bad.

Beyond that, RV's are flown often. There are ~8,000 RV's out of ~200k GA aircraft in the States. That's 4% of the fleet (roughly). Go to your local field and see what portion of the actual flying the RV's do? More than 4%, I'd bet. The RV fleet is a young fleet. Shiny new airplanes get flown more than granddad's tired C-172 which he's kind of bored with and flies 20 hours a year. There aren't many RV ramp queens. So, again, RV's may suffer a disproportionate number of accidents compared to the fleet size, but I doubt it is disproportionate from an hours flown perspective. I don't see how that makes the airplanes or their pilots targets of the kind of crap I see here.

What was the last dumb or careless RV accident we've discussed? I honestly don't remember it. So why the tar, the feathers, and the generalizations? It makes no sense to me.

And to the OP. Bob Collins' aircraft, which was linked earlier in the thread, would probably be a good aircraft to look at. But there are a lot of RV's out there, so look at several before you make a decision.

Read the Jackson Hole thread, sorry about the deceased, but that was a dumb accident exemplifying a lack of control of the aircraft.

 

[Geico266]

Read the Jackson Hole thread, sorry about the deceased, but that was a dumb accident exemplifying a lack of control of the aircraft.

This from the famous all knowing Henning?

One accident ( most assuredly mechanical failure on take off followed by poor decision making) and you seem to condemn the whole fleet?

Your answers are short, shallow, and confrontational. Really?

 

[LandSickness]

I saw an RV6 not too long ago in for repair with an A/P. He's not against experimentals, but stupidity. The owner had flown it from Florida to upper state NY to Virginia with cracks in the propeller.

Even still, I saw an RV9 which, if I understood the owner correctly, is an RV7 with longer wings. Not rated for acro, but who cares. Flying through the air in a hunk of aluminum is death defying enough for me.

 

[Henning]

This from the famous all knowing Henning?

One accident ( most assuredly mechanical failure on take off followed by poor decision making) and you seem to condemn the whole fleet?

As I said before, I don't condemn the fleet at all, I think the airplanes are good. I think there is a disproportionate number of pilots with dangerous attitudes flying them because of a BS alluring cult that has developed around them. Many of the RV accidents are people doing aerobatics with no aerobatic training.

 

[Geico266]

As I said before, I don't condemn the fleet at all, I think the airplanes are good. I think there is a disproportionate number of pilots with dangerous attitudes flying them because of a BS alluring cult that has developed around them. Many of the RV accidents are people doing aerobatics with no aerobatic training.

Duh! Because the FAA mandated that you could not use experiementals for training? Seriously, do you read anything about experimental and the accident rates, and what is being done? Or do you just spew facts and hope some thing sticks.

That now has been changed due to the EAA, and the accident rate will drop.

 

[kyleb]

Read the Jackson Hole thread, sorry about the deceased, but that was a dumb accident exemplifying a lack of control of the aircraft.

Henning, I find many of your stories interesting. But implying that you know what happened in that cockpit is one of your bigger over-reaches. Unless you *know* there was no smoke, fire, oil on the windshield, panicked passenger, whatever, I suggest you find a different grave to **** on.

 

[Henning]

Henning, I find many of your stories interesting. But implying that you know what happened in that cockpit is one of your bigger over-reaches. Unless you *know* there was no smoke, fire, oil on the windshield, panicked passenger, whatever, I suggest you find a different grave to **** on.

We have an eye witness account from an observer I know personally to be credible. Over banked and stalled it, end of story. I don't care what was on the windshield, feet on fire or whatever.

 

[kyleb]

Many of the RV accidents are people doing aerobatics with no aerobatic training.

Can you provide data to support that statement?

Didn't think so.

 

[Henning]

Can you provide data to support that statement?

Didn't think so.

Yeah, there's actually a report on it, if you look I'm sure you can find it.

 

[Henning]

Duh! Because the FAA mandated that you could not use experiementals for training? Seriously, do you read anything about experimental and the accident rates, and what is being done? Or do you just spew facts and hope some thing sticks.

That now has been changed due to the EAA, and the accident rate will drop.

No such thing, in fact, the FAA has even made an exception for allowing a CFI to charge for training in their own experimental. There has NEVER been a prohibition on getting training in the one you own, you can even take your check rides in one. Be a shame if facts ever stick.

 

[kyleb]

Yeah, there's actually a report on it, if you look I'm sure you can find it.

No, no. You're the guy making the claim. You find it. Particularly the part which says many RV accidents are caused by aerobatics by people who haven't been properly trained.

I'll wait...

 

[DaleB]

I saw an RV6 not too long ago in for repair with an A/P. He's not against experimentals, but stupidity. The owner had flown it from Florida to upper state NY to Virginia with cracks in the propeller.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that it was an RV, or even an experimental. I saw a 182 that some fool had run off the runway and damaged. Does that mean Cessnas, or Cessna drivers are dangerous?

Even still, I saw an RV9 which, if I understood the owner correctly, is an RV7 with longer wings. Not rated for acro, but who cares. Flying through the air in a hunk of aluminum is death defying enough for me.

What's your point there? An RV-9 is a pretty well documented airplane, and it's really easy to find out exactly what it is. The fuselage is basically the same as the RV-7 -- actually the -7 was designed after the -9, using the -9 fuse and tail -- and has a completely different wing, intended for a different mission. Again, I'm not clear on what point you were trying to make there, so maybe I misunderstood.

It's not like these things are just thrown together from random parts.

 

[Neal Howard]

The -9 has a different horizontal stab and elevator than the -7. Only the vertical stab and rudder are the same. The rear spar of the wing is also in a different place between the two.

 

[DaleB]

The -9 has a different horizontal stab and elevator than the -7. Only the vertical stab and rudder are the same. The rear spar of the wing is also in a different place between the two.

You're right, I mis-spoke (typed). The 7 uses the 9's larger vertical, but of course since the wing is different the horizontal stab/elevator will be also.

My point was that the 9 is not some oddball experiment just thrown together -- neither is the 7.

And from an earlier post:

No such thing, in fact, the FAA has even made an exception for allowing a CFI to charge for training in their own experimental. There has NEVER been a prohibition on getting training in the one you own, you can even take your check rides in one. Be a shame if facts ever stick.

Henning, I believe the LOA exception for instruction to be given in experimentals is relatively new, isn't it? Not more thana few years? And while it's true that there has never been a rule against getting instruction in a plane you own, there's that pesky 40 hour Phase I to contend with. Pre-LOA, if a guy built a plane there was no way he could legally fly with an instructor until he (or someone) had completed the Phase I flight testing. I can see where that would have created a bad situation, and it did, which is why we now have LOAs for instructors to give instruction in experimentals.

 

[Jim Logajan]

After extensive research and help from this forum, I am looking at purchasing a used rv-6a or 7a. I'm seeking advice for what to look for, and what to stay away from when buying a used experimental.

If the plane has 300 or more hours on it then it is probably safely past the infant mortality stage on its systems. Doesn't mean under 300 hours are bad, but if it was me and I had a choice I'd consider the plane with more hours, all else being equal (which it rarely is.)

 

[Jay Honeck]

This thread is hilarious, and sad.

When I flew Warriors, Ercoupes, Pathfinders, Cubs, Constellations, Cezznas, and everything in between, I was a reasonably well-respected member of this community.

Now that I proudly own and fly an AMAZING RV-8, I've been labeled an outlaw, unsafe, and reckless. I've been been told by people I've respected for years that they would never fly with me.

Amazingly, although you'd never know it by what's been written on this site, I've taken every safety precaution. I've hired and trained with the best transition trainer in the business, Tom Berge -- who is now ALSO being slandered as "third rate" by a pilot without a clue. I've done no aerobatics, pending professional aerobatic training. I've carefully measured and test flown departures and landing techniques -- even sharing GoPro video of them here in this group for analysis and education.

To no avail. The anti-RV mindset here is so completely ingrained that those who have the malady can't even see it. Until I experienced it for myself, I would not have believed it.

Several people warned me about the POA bias, but I refused to believe them. In fact, I questioned its existence right up till I was hit in the face with it. Anyone who denies that it exists need only read this thread, and see how it rapidly degenerated. It's all the proof anyone needs.

To the OP: Go to Vansairforce.net. You will get type-specific, straightforward answers from people with a thousand times the knowledge and experience of anyone here. That site is a great place where you will be made to feel welcome from Day One. It's truly a wonderful resource that I cannot recommend more highly.

 

[RotorAndWing]

To the OP: Go to Vansairforce.net. You will get type-specific, straightforward answers from people with a thousand times the knowledge and experience of anyone here. That site is a great place where you will be made to feel welcome from Day One. It's truly a wonderful resource that I cannot recommend more highly.

I would agree with that and I've only ever looked at the site a couple of times.

However I asked the question:

Just curious, are their members on the VAF site that don't own an RV but another make (certified?) that go into inane rants about their favorite airplane and why it's superior to the RV?

And seriously I am just wondering if that goes on over at that site?

 

[wabower]

You didn't answer the question last time, so let's try one more time. Which grand-kid should I leave home?

Questioning is one thing, ganging up and bashing RV owners is quite another. No one ever said RV's are the end all. But right now experimentals are carrying GA forward. Don't start bashing me over that little factoid, call the FAA and dispute their recent stats.

I can't help it of you certified diehards tied your horse to the wrong wagon.

 

[DaleB]

And seriously I am just wondering if that goes on over at that site?

No. In fact one of the reasons I really like VAF is that things stay on topic very nearly all the time. VERY good S/N ratio there.

 

[RotorAndWing]

No. In fact one of the reasons I really like VAF is that things stay on topic very nearly all the time. VERY good S/N ratio there.

OK, appreciate the answer.

 

[Dav8or]

This thread is hilarious, and sad.

When I flew Warriors, Ercoupes, Pathfinders, Cubs, Constellations, Cezznas, and everything in between, I was a reasonably well-respected member of this community.

Now that I proudly own and fly an AMAZING RV-8, I've been labeled an outlaw, unsafe, and reckless. I've been been told by people I've respected for years that they would never fly with me.

Amazingly, although you'd never know it by what's been written on this site, I've taken every safety precaution. I've hired and trained with the best transition trainer in the business, Tom Berge -- who is now ALSO being slandered as "third rate" by a pilot without a clue. I've done no aerobatics, pending professional aerobatic training. I've carefully measured and test flown departures and landing techniques -- even sharing GoPro video of them here in this group for analysis and education.

To no avail. The anti-RV mindset here is so completely ingrained that those who have the malady can't even see it. Until I experienced it for myself, I would not have believed it.

Several people warned me about the POA bias, but I refused to believe them. In fact, I questioned its existence right up till I was hit in the face with it. Anyone who denies that it exists need only read this thread, and see how it rapidly degenerated. It's all the proof anyone needs.

To the OP: Go to Vansairforce.net. You will get type-specific, straightforward answers from people with a thousand times the knowledge and experience of anyone here. That site is a great place where you will be made to feel welcome from Day One. It's truly a wonderful resource that I cannot recommend more highly.

Now you know how a Cirrus owner feels. Both airplanes are sound, well engineered and excellent in meeting their mission requirements. Both planes however, attract a larger percentage of pilot population with poor decision making skills than other types. (Oh God, here comes the demands for statistics!)

Some pilots buying either plane has convinced themselves that they now own the magic elixir to aviation's woes. They now not only believe they can cheat death, but defeat death.

"My airplane has a parachute, so I'll be OK."

"My airplane is stressed to +6 Gs, so I'll be OK."

"My airplane has a all glass panel and a magic GPS, so I'll be OK."

"My airplane is fully aerobatic and tested, so I'll be OK."

"My airplane is a 21st century technological wonder, so I'm far better off than all the regular spam cans."

"My airplane is an E-AB, so I'm not encumbered with all the government baggage that makes planes crappy, so I'm far better off than all the regular spam cans."

I hope you get the picture. Your excitement for the "amazing" RV-8 as you transitioned from a Cherokee, is the same excitement that the Skyhawk pilot feels as he transitions to the SR-22.

Sadly for some people, ends in the same result, however it doesn't have to and most of the time does not.

 

[Dav8or]

No. In fact one of the reasons I really like VAF is that things stay on topic very nearly all the time. VERY good S/N ratio there.

You just blew it! Now there are some folks over here that are getting ideas as to where else they can go to drag a thread down.

 

[DaleB]

You just blew it! Now there are some folks over here that are getting ideas as to where else they can go to drag a thread down.

One could try it on VAF, but one would quickly see one's posts summarily deleted. It's a fairly focused place.

 

[RotorAndWing]

One could try it on VAF, but one would quickly see one's posts summarily deleted. It's a fairly focused place.

Honestly I don't believe anyone would try it.

I'm just amazed the zealots come over here and go on their "jihad" constantly attacking anyone who doesn't share their zeal for a particular airplane.

 

[Dav8or]

One could try it on VAF, but one would quickly see one's posts summarily deleted. It's a fairly focused place.

I'm sure that's true. The difference between moderated and openly moderated.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I'm sure that's true. The difference between moderated and openly moderated.

VAF is a commercial venture. That heavily influences the moderation. However, while DR makes money off the site to make a living, I do not know how or if the many moderators get paid. It has been a few years since I had an account there.

 

[LandSickness]

Which has nothing to do with the fact that it was an RV, or even an experimental. I saw a 182 that some fool had run off the runway and damaged. Does that mean Cessnas, or Cessna drivers are dangerous?
What's your point there? An RV-9 is a pretty well documented airplane, and it's really easy to find out exactly what it is. The fuselage is basically the same as the RV-7 -- actually the -7 was designed after the -9, using the -9 fuse and tail -- and has a completely different wing, intended for a different mission. Again, I'm not clear on what point you were trying to make there, so maybe I misunderstood.

It's not like these things are just thrown together from random parts.

My only point was that while there might be RV owners who trust the line so much that they're willing to risk their lives right up to the very edge of the limits of these amazing aircraft, there's a bunch of us that just enjoy flying straight and level and that's plenty for us. I would bet the safety records for us, compared to the daredevils are probably much better also. The design is solid and the plane when built to specs, is rock solid.