So...tell me about RV-6As...

[Jay Honeck]

When we got Atlas (our Cherokee 235 Pathfinder), back in '02, we had two almost-teenagers and a need for its enormous (1460 pound) useful load. It has served us well, as a load-hauling mini-van of the skies, for both business and pleasure.

Now, one of our kids is out of the nest, the other will follow in a year, and we're starting to think that feeding that big ol' O-540 isn't going to be getting any cheaper. I'd like to get back down to an O-320 or O-360-powered aircraft again, with avgas prices soaring. Since we won't need four seats anymore, this opens up a world of choices.

I am also TOTALLY sick and tired of owning "certified" airplanes that require an act of Congress every time I want to upgrade an instrument in the panel. I'm thinking that one of Van's airplanes is the way to go, but I'm willing to be talked out of it....

One note: I am NOT going to build a plane. My lifestyle won't permit it, so I will be looking to buy an aircraft that has been constructed by a reputable builder.

So...what do I need to know? I've never flown in one, or even sat in one.

 

[Tom-D]

If you want cheap flying for 2 go EZ.

http://barnstormers.com/classified_540587_Nice+Long+EZ.html

http://barnstormers.com/classified_494992_Long+EZ.html

http://barnstormers.com/classified_552591_Rutan+Long+Ez+Great+Condition.html

The last one might even be a trade, but all are under the price of and equal equipped RV-6A

 

[BillTIZ]

If you are not going to build your own airplane and get the "builders" certificate to do the maintenance and inspections. Then you are still limited to part 43 appdx A on "owner maintenance" items even for the "experimental" aircraft. Granted only an A&P is required to sign off the annual condition inspections, an IA is not required.

 

[pericynthion]

If you are not going to build your own airplane and get the "builders" certificate to do the maintenance and inspections. Then you are still limited to part 43 appdx A on "owner maintenance" items even for the "experimental" aircraft. Granted only an A&P is required to sign off the annual condition inspections, an IA is not required.

This is a common misconception! If you don't have the repairman's certificate (almost always awarded only to the builder) then you may still carry out all maintenance, repairs, modifications, instrument installations etc yourself. You do have to get an IA to sign off the condition inspection once a year (doesn't have to be both A&P). This condition inspection typically costs <<$500.

 

[Jay Honeck]

If you want cheap flying for 2 go EZ.

http://barnstormers.com/classified_540587_Nice+Long+EZ.html

http://barnstormers.com/classified_494992_Long+EZ.html

http://barnstormers.com/classified_552591_Rutan+Long+Ez+Great+Condition.html

The last one might even be a trade, but all are under the price of and equal equipped RV-6A

Hmm. I like the idea of a plastic plane down here in the land of salt air. So tell me about EZs? I know they're a Rutan design -- but how do they fly? Are there controls in the back cockpit?

 

[Tom-D]

Hmm. I like the idea of a plastic plane down here in the land of salt air. So tell me about EZs? I know they're a Rutan design -- but how do they fly? Are there controls in the back cockpit?

Usually the controls are in the front hole, but they are home built and they can have rear controls, but weight is a big factor.

they fly like no other aircraft you have ever flown, but they require very little cross training, the final is throttle back and hold the nose up to approach speed and manage decent with throttle. (but very little)

These three have already been flown enough to know they are not junk, or put together poorly.

You can do all the maintenance your self, but you must have the Original repairman do the yearly compliance inspection or a certified mechanic. This conditional inspection is to insure it still meets its letter of limitations as certified. It is mostly to insure you have not done any major modifications that would place it in a re-certification status.

A well built Long EZ is as close as you can get to a jet trainer and still hear it go putt putt

As you can tell by the vid, they are not for short strips, most who own them ship the bags a day ahead and go long and high.

My friend with the Very EZ does SEA to KC (nonstop) on less than 33 gallons car gas.

 

[Tom-D]

This is a common misconception! If you don't have the repairman's certificate (almost always awarded only to the builder) then you may still carry out all maintenance, repairs, modifications, instrument installations etc yourself. You do have to get an A&Pto sign off the condition inspection once a year (doesn't have to be IA). This condition inspection typically costs <<$500.

Fixed that for ya,,

I do them for $150.
I do the inspection and give you a list of things I would fix. There is no such thing as a UNairworthy EXP unless it does not meet its letter of limitations.. The inspector can't sign it off as unairworthy because there is no standard to judge it by.

But I have refused to sign the conditional inspection because I thought that I did not want my name on that piece of junk.

 

[wanttaja]

If you are not going to build your own airplane and get the "builders" certificate to do the maintenance and inspections. Then you are still limited to part 43 appdx A on "owner maintenance" items even for the "experimental" aircraft. Granted only an A&P is required to sign off the annual condition inspections, an IA is not required.

Part 43 does not apply to Experimental aircraft. See 43.1(b).

The only exception is when the Operating Limitations state to use a section of Part 43 as a guide. For instance, mine say that the condition inspection should be performed in accordance to Appendix D of Part 43. But I've never heard of limitations calling out anything but the Annual/100-hour Appendix.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

Hmm. I like the idea of a plastic plane down here in the land of salt air. So tell me about EZs? I know they're a Rutan design -- but how do they fly? Are there controls in the back cockpit?

I have several friends with EZs, they really like them. Their aircraft have controls in the rear seat.

Drawbacks:
1. They're not short field aircraft. After ~20 years of flying his Long-EZ, one friend still sticks to a 3000-foot minimum field length.

2. They should be operated exclusively from paved surfaces. Don't want the wheels kicking gravel into the pusher prop.

3. They're heat-sensitive like many composite aircraft. If painted white, they should be OK, even in Texas. But the sensitivity can rear its head in other ways...for instance, one reason my buddy has a 3000-foot minimum is to avoid excess braking (the landing gear bow is composite, and brake heat can affect it).

4. Perversely, it's difficult to provide heat to the occupants. The pilot sits a considerable distance forward of the heat source. My buddy's feet get a bit cold, sometimes (probably not a consideration in South Texas).

5. The back cockpit can be a bit snug. My shoulders are too wide.

6. The structure is difficult to inspect during a pre-buy.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[kyleb]

So...what do I need to know? I've never flown in one, or even sat in one.

If you want to sit in an RV-6, drop me a line at Oshkosh. I should be there from Thursday through Sunday AM. I'll be parked in homebuilt camping.

(seven seven zero) 722-4084.

 

[wsuffa]

One of the DPEs in South Texas flys a Long EZ. I did my Commercial with him - he flew into Stinson in his EZ from somewhere near Corpus.

 

[steingar]

Jay, you can sit in one all day at the Show, and I bet they give demo flights for a price. Probably a cheap one. All I can say is don't do it. Do not fly in one. If you fly one, you'll want it. I want one.

My guess is a hangar and regular maintenance will keep that salt air at bay. You can ask about it on the Vans internet forums. Like I said, DO NOT FLY IN ONE! YOU WILL WANT IT. RIGHT NOW.

 

[whifferdill]

The RV design now seems so basic and obvious that you wonder why it took so long for anyne to design something like it. It truly is about the best all-around flying airplane when it comes to speed, handling, efficiency, practicality, short field capability, operational simplicity, ruggedness, aerobatic capability, etc. They are very straightforward and predictable to fly, and have no real quirks. About the only "quirk" I would say exists on the trike RV's is the need to treat the nosewheel with care and avoid soft/rough grass strips that have a spot bad enough that could cause the nosewheel fork to make contact with the ground. This has put quite a number of folks on their backs. The "problem" is a combination of improper pilot technique and/or the design. Know your landing area and use good technique, and you should never have a problem with a trike RV. That being said, I'd recommend the tailwheel version. They are all wonderful planes. They are traditionally constructed, and many mechanics have experience with them due to their numbers. It's best to find someone with RV knowledge to do a pre-buy, but since they are are built like any other metal plane, this becomes less of an issue compared to other designs. Much more of an RV knowledge base at http://vansairforce.net

 

[wsuffa]

The guy with the hangar next to mine has a Harmon Rocket. He and his son are planning on taking it to the Reno Air Races this fall. Very nice plane. And very fast....

 

[EvilEagle]

If you like glass, think about a Glasair. (just might know a nice one for sale soon....)

 

[CJones]

RV's are great get-up-and-go planes. Since you're planning on using your plane as a travelling machine, you should get you and your main travelling companion (wife) to sit in one and close the canopy. Some people don't like the 'snugness' of the RV cabin. My wife is spoiled - she has ridden in dad's RV-10, now she doesn't even want to think about getting in the -7 anymore. Cabin can get warm in hot climates like you're in, so if you have a motion-sensitive passenger, you'll need to take the OAT into more consideration than with a 'regular' airplane. We have a couple of those suction-cup window shades that we use in the 7 - it makes a ton of difference! The nice thing about the RV is that you can climb well enough to get up to 10-11k+ where the cooler air is pretty easily.

There are several large 'builder groups' in Texas. Look someone up at vansairforce.net and someone will be more than willing to give you some ride time.

 

[CJones]

The guy with the hangar next to mine has a Harmon Rocket. He and his son are planning on taking it to the Reno Air Races this fall. Very nice plane. And very fast....

Fun, but with a price. Rocket's have a substantial increase in insurance premiums.

But man do they look cool!!!

 

[wanttaja]

The RV design now seems so basic and obvious that you wonder why it took so long for anyne to design something like it.

1. Thorp T-18
2. Mustang 2
3. Smythe Sidewinder

Designs are homebuilt all-metal low-wing two-seat aircraft similar to the RV-6, but all three preceded it by 15-20 years. The RV-6 got popular by offering a better combination of flying qualities, performance, and cabin size, plus much better kits and excellent support.

A used T-18 is a good alternative to an RV-6...it's a bit cozier, cruises slower, stalls a bit sharper, but sells for tens of thousands of dollars less.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Andrew Sego]

I found the RVs very easy to fly.

If your mission only includes flying to long, paved airports then fast glass might be more to your liking. I like grass strips and so I'm building a tailwheel RV. While the market for RVs has not depressed as much as the market for certifieds, there are some great deals out there right now for completed examples.

 

[Andrew Sego]

1. Thorp T-18
2. Mustang 2
3. Smythe Sidewinder

Designs are homebuilt all-metal low-wing two-seat aircraft similar to the RV-6, but all three preceded it by 15-20 years. The RV-6 got popular by offering a better combination of flying qualities, performance, and cabin size, plus much better kits and excellent support.

A used T-18 is a good alternative to an RV-6...it's a bit cozier, cruises slower, stalls a bit sharper, but sells for tens of thousands of dollars less.

Ron Wanttaja

Great airplanes. You may find the build quality differs a little more widely on those scratch build airplanes than among RVs, however. That's not to say that there aren't some pretty shoddily built RVs out there, but it's harder to screw up a Vans kit.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Great airplanes. You may find the build quality differs a little more widely on those scratch build airplanes than among RVs, however. That's not to say that there aren't some pretty shoddily built RVs out there, but it's harder to screw up a Vans kit.

Ummm.... Ok. Harder, but not impossible.

I've seen some less than stellar riveting on an RV as well as on a T-18. Seems like places where two panels butt is where the mess is worst. 'bout most of the way back on the side skins on the T-18 and the middle of the wing on the RV. You want to look at the back side if possible since the surface is usually fixed up with bondo. On the other hand, they don't seem to fall out of the sky even if the builder beat the **** out of the skins with the rivet gun.

Watch the empty weight as well. Don't have any experience with the RV, but there are more than a few T-18s out there with an empty weight pretty close to what John Thorp (with no "e") intended as the gross weight.

 

[Andrew Sego]

Ummm.... Ok. Harder, but not impossible.

It's definitely not impossible. I've seen some shoddy work by a guy who's built multiple airplanes and shouldn't have started his last one (failing sight among other problems).

 

[Jay Honeck]

If you want to sit in an RV-6, drop me a line at Oshkosh. I should be there from Thursday through Sunday AM. I'll be parked in homebuilt camping.

(seven seven zero) 722-4084.

Thanks, Kyle. I'll give you a buzz up at OSH!

 

[Jay Honeck]

If you like glass, think about a Glasair. (just might know a nice one for sale soon....)

I knew a guy who literally spent every spare minute for 13 years of his life in an unheated hangar building a Glasair. Of course, he was a perfectionist, re-doing each part three times until it was flawless. He was a no-kidder, obviously. (Who else would have the time?)

Awesome plane. Fastest thing at the airport. If it ever goes up for sale, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

 

[Tom-D]

Great airplanes. You may find the build quality differs a little more widely on those scratch build airplanes than among RVs, however. That's not to say that there aren't some pretty shoddily built RVs out there, but it's harder to screw up a Vans kit.

until you some builder that has a better idea.

 

[Neal Howard]

Jay,

One thing about the -6 to consider is that the baggage compartment is limited to only 60 lbs of stuff.

The -7 and -8 can haul a lot more baggage, and have 42 gallons of fuel capacity too. Much better suited for long distance traveling.

On whatever day I fly the RV-8 into Oshkosh (looking like perhaps Monday), I'll give you a call and you can try sitting in it too. For a tandem, it's quite roomy and comfortable, and with two baggage compartments, it can be like a small pickup truck with wings

 

[kyleb]

Jay,

One thing about the -6 to consider is that the baggage compartment is limited to only 60 lbs of stuff.

Van's documentation limits the baggage compartment to 100 lbs in the -6, pending other w/b issues.

My typical Atlanta - Oshkosh trip involves me and a buddy (that's nearly 400 pounds of people), 75 pounds of bags, and 4 hours of fuel. We stop somewhere in N. Illinois (say Aurora, IL) to check weather, hit the restroom, and add enough fuel to get to Oshkosh and back to Aurora.

This year, I'll be solo to Osh, and won't hesitate to put 80-100 lb in the back plus whatever fits in the pax seat and the passenger side floorboard.

SWMBO and I used to make (we have a little boy now) an Atlanta - Houston trip several times a year. That was usually nonstop with 70-80 lbs of stuff.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Jay,

One thing about the -6 to consider is that the baggage compartment is limited to only 60 lbs of stuff.

The -7 and -8 can haul a lot more baggage, and have 42 gallons of fuel capacity too. Much better suited for long distance traveling.

On whatever day I fly the RV-8 into Oshkosh (looking like perhaps Monday), I'll give you a call and you can try sitting in it too. For a tandem, it's quite roomy and comfortable, and with two baggage compartments, it can be like a small pickup truck with wings

Okay -- so an -8 is a tandem version, but with greater useful load than a -6, which is side-by-side seating...right?

Are they both aerobatic?

 

[Jim Logajan]

Much more of an RV knowledge base at http://vansairforce.net

I used to recommend that site, but no longer advise it because the owner and moderators are pretty much out of control, in my very humble opinion:

1) It not only accepts advertising, it appears the owner will edit posts of anyone who potentially could be an advertiser; then demand advertising money to allow the person to answer critics. The many ads don't seem to be enough, though, since the owner also asks for donations. (Check out the skeptical posts in http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=73748 and http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=74247 and what happens when Jan E. tries to respond.) According to a post in the Yahoo Viking engines list, the owner wanted $3500 before he would let Jan E. make "promotional" posts. (Oddly, the same criteria was not applied to a thread about the Jabiru for the RV-12.)

2) The volunteer moderators lock and delete threads without thinking too deeply about how it makes them look. I recall one thread started by a moderator who is also a DAR wherein he announced he would no longer inspect RV-12s because Van's Aircraft wasn't giving him some technical information he felt he needed to check some aspect. Eventually it was pointed out to him by some posters that the information was in a document supplied to every RV-12 builder. The DAR/moderator then deleted the entire thread. As I recall, only when someone started another thread asking what happened to the thread did the DAR/moderator state what he had done.

3) Too many moderators: http://www.vansairforce.net/rules.htm#moderators

4) Too one-sided: Full control of threads and even editing of posts with no consequences. Ad revenue plus donations from users plus moderators who work for free equals one sweet deal.

 

[Neal Howard]

Okay -- so an -8 is a tandem version, but with greater useful load than a -6, which is side-by-side seating...right?

Are they both aerobatic?

The -8 can handle up to (according to Vans published specs on their website) 125 lbs of baggage, and has a max gross weight of 1800 lbs. (Aerobatic gross is 1600 lbs). The RV-8 I fly is just a little over 1100 lbs empty.

The only Vans models that aren't aerobatic are the RV-9/9A, RV-10 and RV-12. The 3/4/6/7/8 models are all aerobatic.

I've rolled the 8 many times, but haven't been brave enough to loop it yet. The owner has looped it many times and he says it loops beautifully. I think I'll stick to rolls myself.

One big plus of the RV-6 is that a lot of folks consider it to be the strongest airframe of the bunch, maybe even ever so slightly stronger than an RV-4 (small tandem with very cramped rear seat). I don't think anyone has broken an RV-6 in flight yet.

The specs for all the models are on the vansaircraft.com website.

The 6/7/9 models are the side-by-side two-seaters (well the 12 is also), and I used to think that my dream RV was going to be a 7, but they are still a little bit "cozy" inside WRT shoulder room with two aboard. The cabin width is nowhere near as spacious as the Piper PA28 series, like both of us are accustomed to.

 

[Jay Honeck]

The -8 can handle up to (according to Vans published specs on their website) 125 lbs of baggage, and has a max gross weight of 1800 lbs. (Aerobatic gross is 1600 lbs). The RV-8 I fly is just a little over 1100 lbs empty.

The only Vans models that aren't aerobatic are the RV-9/9A, RV-10 and RV-12. The 3/4/6/7/8 models are all aerobatic.

I've rolled the 8 many times, but haven't been brave enough to loop it yet. The owner has looped it many times and he says it loops beautifully. I think I'll stick to rolls myself.

One big plus of the RV-6 is that a lot of folks consider it to be the strongest airframe of the bunch, maybe even ever so slightly stronger than an RV-4 (small tandem with very cramped rear seat). I don't think anyone has broken an RV-6 in flight yet.

The specs for all the models are on the vansaircraft.com website.

The 6/7/9 models are the side-by-side two-seaters (well the 12 is also), and I used to think that my dream RV was going to be a 7, but they are still a little bit "cozy" inside WRT shoulder room with two aboard. The cabin width is nowhere near as spacious as the Piper PA28 series, like both of us are accustomed to.

Thanks for all the great info. I suspect we will be spending some time at the Van's tent in OSH!

The cabin width is sorta disappointing. Cherokees are okay in that regard, especially so since my wife/co-pilot is tiny -- but anything narrower would not be fun.

I take it the tandem cabins are more than adequately wide for the pilots/passengers? I have nothing against tandem seating, so long as they have controls in each hole.

 

[Neal Howard]

I take it the tandem cabins are more than adequately wide for the pilots/passengers? I have nothing against tandem seating, so long as they have controls in each hole.

The RV-8 has plenty of shoulder room both front and rear. The RV-4 is pretty cozy up front, and downright cramped in the rear. I've rode in the back of a 4 from Wichita KS back to W.Falls, and that was all I could take.

We've got stick, trim, throttle and rudder pedals in the rear seat of the RV-8, and I've done several takeoffs from the back seat, but would not want to try to land it from the back since the tiny "mushroom" rudder pedals for the rear seat are not very smooth operating and also there are no brakes in the back... kinda important for landing a taildragger. The RV-8A is a tricycle gear, and I imagine you could land it from the back seat much easier.

 

[wanttaja]

Thanks for all the great info. I suspect we will be spending some time at the Van's tent in OSH!

The cabin width is sorta disappointing. Cherokees are okay in that regard, especially so since my wife/co-pilot is tiny -- but anything narrower would not be fun.

I take it the tandem cabins are more than adequately wide for the pilots/passengers? I have nothing against tandem seating, so long as they have controls in each hole.

I've got cockpit sizes for most of the Vans' series at:

http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/cockpit.htm

Ron Wanttaja

 

[jason]

Hmm. I like the idea of a plastic plane down here in the land of salt air. So tell me about EZs? I know they're a Rutan design -- but how do they fly? Are there controls in the back cockpit?

Just don't pick up any ice...or fly through any rain.

I think they fixed the rain thing on later models. But you'll want to read up on it.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I've got cockpit sizes for most of the Vans' series at:

http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/cockpit.htm

Ron Wanttaja

WOW -- is that right? The RV-6 has only 18.75" or width (per person) at the hips, while the RV-8 has 31"?

That's, um, significant. I just measured my "hip width", and 18.75" is pretty much all of me!

 

[wanttaja]

WOW -- is that right? The RV-6 has only 18.75" or width (per person) at the hips, while the RV-8 has 31"?

Note that there are two RV-6 measurements, and one's a couple of inches more. Probably a different choice for interior appointments or center console. See also the note about the measurement point for the 18.75 one; probably a bit higher than your hips would actually go.

Best bet, as always, is to actually try one on. I've flown in an RV-6, and it was more comfortable than some other side-by-side homebuilts I've been in. And dear me, I *need* the room....

On the other hand, I've flown in the back seat of an RV-8 and it was *real* roomy. Lotsa room in an -8.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[RoscoeT]

I've rolled the 8 many times, but haven't been brave enough to loop it yet. The owner has looped it many times and he says it loops beautifully. I think I'll stick to rolls myself.

Good call! To "work up the gumption" to try something is the completely wrong way to approach acro, and it means you have a fool for an instructor (yourself). Aerobatics is not about being brave, it's about knowing exactly what should (and will) happen, and calmly and without reservation making it so. Get some basic acro training, and a loop in an RV-8 will be a piece of cake mentally and technically. Aerobatics is like flying in general...very easy to do at the minimum level that will keep you from killing yourself, but not so easy to do with precision.

 

[painless]

I used to recommend that site, but no longer advise it because the owner and moderators are pretty much out of control, in my very humble opinion:

1) It not only accepts advertising, it appears the owner will edit posts of anyone who potentially could be an advertiser; then demand advertising money to allow the person to answer critics. The many ads don't seem to be enough, though, since the owner also asks for donations. (Check out the skeptical posts in http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=73748 and http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=74247 and what happens when Jan E. tries to respond.) According to a post in the Yahoo Viking engines list, the owner wanted $3500 before he would let Jan E. make "promotional" posts. (Oddly, the same criteria was not applied to a thread about the Jabiru for the RV-12.)

2) The volunteer moderators lock and delete threads without thinking too deeply about how it makes them look. I recall one thread started by a moderator who is also a DAR wherein he announced he would no longer inspect RV-12s because Van's Aircraft wasn't giving him some technical information he felt he needed to check some aspect. Eventually it was pointed out to him by some posters that the information was in a document supplied to every RV-12 builder. The DAR/moderator then deleted the entire thread. As I recall, only when someone started another thread asking what happened to the thread did the DAR/moderator state what he had done.

3) Too many moderators: http://www.vansairforce.net/rules.htm#moderators

4) Too one-sided: Full control of threads and even editing of posts with no consequences. Ad revenue plus donations from users plus moderators who work for free equals one sweet deal.

Try www.rivetbangers.com

Much friendlier group, no adds, everyone is very supportive of each other. Good group.

I personally think the 6A is a sweetheart of an airplane. Then again, I may be biased....:wink2:

Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P
Peshtigo, WI

 

[Tom-D]

Note that there are two RV-6 measurements, and one's a couple of inches more. Probably a different choice for interior appointments or center console. See also the note about the measurement point for the 18.75 one; probably a bit higher than your hips would actually go.

Best bet, as always, is to actually try one on. I've flown in an RV-6, and it was more comfortable than some other side-by-side homebuilts I've been in. And dear me, I *need* the room....

On the other hand, I've flown in the back seat of an RV-8 and it was *real* roomy. Lotsa room in an -8.

Ron Wanttaja

Deal with profile drag, and ask your self why they go so fast?

 

[Neal Howard]

Good call! To "work up the gumption" to try something is the completely wrong way to approach acro, and it means you have a fool for an instructor (yourself). Aerobatics is not about being brave, it's about knowing exactly what should (and will) happen, and calmly and without reservation making it so. Get some basic acro training, and a loop in an RV-8 will be a piece of cake mentally and technically. Aerobatics is like flying in general...very easy to do at the minimum level that will keep you from killing yourself, but not so easy to do with precision.

I've actually got a wee bit of aerobatic "casual training" in a T-34, but that was a long time ago, and I had a retired Navy pilot with a bazillion hours in the front seat. I looped his T-34 three times before my stomach said enuff.

The RV-8 is technically over the aerobatic gross weight with two aboard, so I doubt that I'll ever go up with the owner and try any loops in it. I'm content to fly it keeping the shiny side up while going places fast, and enjoy the occasional roll, because they're super easy to do, and don't really involve any stomach-turning G's, and I know what to expect.