RV 6

[nbjeeptj]

There is an RV 6 He called it an RV6.5 for sale online. He listed it in the LSA section, and in his ad he says it is #1320 gross with #432 usefull load can fly without medical. Is this even possible? He says it has a 0-320 in it. I would think it would exceed the max speed and have a higher stall speed than required by LSA standards. If it were EAB, and he could get the stall speed down to the 51mph, could you just put in the POH that the max speed is 138mph and that be good?

[Jack Tyler]

You may be referring to the small group of firemen/ex-fireman in the Lakeland/Bartow, FL area who build RV-6 and 6A's from Vans kits, put red lines on the tachs to keep the rpm (and so speed) compliant with ASTM standards, wink when someone asks how they can fly with any fuel and two people (their 432# useful load may not include much avionics), and some of us scratch our heads why the Orlando FSDO folks, who know these builders very well, find this acceptable. (BTW I don't see the RV6 listed on Vans current website but the slightly heavier, larger RV-7 has a stall speed of 51 mph, so that would seem to (just) comply with the 45 kt ASTM standard).

Of course, you may be seeing an ad from someone else who's jumped on this niche market. As many of us have observed for some years now, the LSA industry is quite a young one, and its slow growth has IMO also caused it to remain a fairly immature industry. Who speaks on behalf of the health of the industry as a whole and would, therefore, lend some influence to it policing its own ranks? The large GA orgs like GAMA and AOPA expect the industry to largely manage itself (which seems a reasonable expectation to me) and the EAA doesn't really have a (large) dog in that fight. The individual mfgrs. and importers seem intent on fighting for market share today rather than acting collectively to preserve the market place for tomorrow. Or at least that's what it looks like to me.

[drseti]

I would be very skeptical of any RV except the 12 that claims to be Sport Pilot eligible. They're designed for speed! And as for it being an LSA, no legal way -- it's not factory-built, so can't be an S-LSA. And it's not a kitbuilt version of an S-LSA, so it can't be an E-LSA. That leaves E-AB, which just ain't an LSA, by any FAA definition.

As for the performance specs meeting Sport Pilot limits, the only authoritative document is the Operating Limitations issued by the DAR when the plane got its airworthiness certificate. If the numbers there meet all the SP limits (GTOW, stall speed clean, sea level cruise at max continuous power, unpressurized cabin, fixed landing gear, fixed pitch or ground adjustable prop, single reciprocating engine, two seats maximum), then one might be able to make a case. Sticking red tape on the tach and airspeed indicator after the fact just isn't going to cut it.

Has anyone out there ever seen an RV-6 that could meet these specs? I sure haven't.

[theskunk]

Not a 6, but I've seen a 9 -- there is an extensive thread about it over on vansairforce forum where the guy posted, and defended how he did it and what changes he had to make -- basically he went with the lightest everything he could.

[3Dreaming]

I would be very skeptical of any RV except the 12 that claims to be Sport Pilot eligible. They're designed for speed! And as for it being an LSA, no legal way -- it's not factory-built, so can't be an S-LSA. And it's not a kitbuilt version of an S-LSA, so it can't be an E-LSA. That leaves E-AB, which just ain't an LSA, by any FAA definition.

As for the performance specs meeting Sport Pilot limits, the only authoritative document is the Operating Limitations issued by the DAR when the plane got its airworthiness certificate. If the numbers there meet all the SP limits (GTOW, stall speed clean, sea level cruise at max continuous power, unpressurized cabin, fixed landing gear, fixed pitch or ground adjustable prop, single reciprocating engine, two seats maximum), then one might be able to make a case. Sticking red tape on the tach and airspeed indicator after the fact just isn't going to cut it.

Has anyone out there ever seen an RV-6 that could meet these specs? I sure haven't.

The DAR does not set performance specifications for an airplane. These numbers are set by the builder, and proofed during the flight test period.
Limiting engine RPM to meet LSA requirements is being done with SLSA's, so doing it for a EAB should be no problem. The one thing to remember is if you get caught operating outside the limits you are set for trouble.

[c162pilot]

Paul, the RV-6.5 was on display at the 2013 Sebring Sport Pilot Expo, I only briefly talked with the gentleman who was displaying it. He said he builds one a year and sells them on, he also said he had built five already. He did say it could be flown by a Sport Pilot.

[drseti]

Interesting (I somehow missed seeing this plane at Expo). I'd still want to read the Operating Limitations very carefully. As Tom said, the DAR does not establish the performance specs. But, he or she does document them, and if there's anything in the official Operating Limitations that puts Sport Pilot eligibility into question, I believe that would be the governing document (regardless of what the seller claims).

[Jack Tyler]

Paul, the group (of firemen/ex-firemen) I mentioned above were exhibiting their RV-6 a/c at LSA Expo in 2011 and they were doing exactly what Tom mentioned (and which is done on a few S-LSA a/c) with the tach to help justify their RV-6 E-AB's being Sport Pilot legal. The two Patricia and I viewed - and talked with one of the builders about - suffered from the kind of build-out that is inevitable when you are trying to sell aircraft: a relatively complete panel and therefore a terribly limiting useful load for ASTM compliance. The attitude of the builder about all this 'compliance dodging' was cavalier and unprincipled. At one point he said something along the lines of 'When's the last time you've seen a ramp check, anyway? And if you land after a flight, your fuel load will likely be reduced enough that you'll be legal with a passenger.' One would think both the amateur built community and that portion of the GA industry that cares about the integrity of the SP license (including LSA builders, AOPA and we'd like to think the FAA) would raise holy hell about this, but those particular builders claimed to be doing this 6 years (which means they got started not terribly long after the SP license was approved). My hunch: they've got an 'in' with an agreeable DAR.

[airshowfan]

Here is one for sale right now:

http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?ID=828457

Interesting how the price gets marked up once the airplane is LSA. (You see something similar in Ercoupes and Taylorcrafts for sale; The LSA ones seem to always be a little more expensive. But not twice the price! There are nice RV-6s out there for under $60K).

There is also some discussion about this on Van's Air Force:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/a ... 00639.html

it's not factory-built, so can't be an S-LSA. And it's not a kitbuilt version of an S-LSA, so it can't be an E-LSA. That leaves E-AB, which just ain't an LSA, by any FAA definition.

Remember that a Light Sport pilot can fly any airplane (including EABs and airplanes certified under FAR 23) that meets the LSA requirements: 1320lbs or less, max sustained speed, clean stall speed, etc. There are lots of Taylorcrafts, Ercoupes, Cubs, Champs, and other vintage certified airplanes out there, as well as some EABs (such as, say, the Murphy Renegade), that can be legally flown by Light Sport pilots even though their FAA registrations/certificates do not say "Light Sport Aircraft".

As for this RV-6: Even if may only be flown at 1320 lbs or less, and at low engine settings to keep it at 120 knots or less... How in the world do they get the clean stall speed below 45 knots? RV-6s stall dirty at ~55 knots, clean it's more like 60 or 65. From 55 to 45, that's 80% of the speed, which is 64% of the lift. But it weighs more than 64% of a "normal" RV-6. Over at Van's Air Force, someone has said "I have flown some $160,000 LSA’s and they don’t clean stall speed below 45 kts". Maybe it's not that strict a requirement? Maybe the DAR just believes it when the builder / test-pilot says "Oh, I put some VGs on it, those things make a huge difference! Clean stall at 44KT!".

Edit: Found some interesting discussions about the potential LSA RV-9:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/s ... hp?t=67700

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=335399

[drseti]

It's undeniable that some E-ABs meet the LSA requirements, and can be flown by Sport Pilots, or under SP rules. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I maintain that an RV-6 is most assuredly not one of them.

However, I can easily see how someone might think otherwise. Imagine that you've built an RV-6, limited max gross weight to 1320, pitched the prop for slow, and placarded the panel for an RPM limit slightly above idle. Now, you slap on vortex generators (or maybe rig the flaps so they won't retract all the way), go out and fly power-off stalls, and note that the airspeed indicator drops below 45 knots. Are you not now LSA legal?

The fallacy is that, in a stall, the angle of attack goes critical. If the wing is at a high angle of attack, so is the pitot tube. So, the airflow is diagonal across the pitot tube, and the ASI reads very low. This is why the LSA rule defines stall speed in terms of Calibrated, rather than Indicated, airspeed. In truth, 45 KIAS at a high angle of attack can really be well over 50 KCAS.

The thing is, you'd expect any DAR to know this! So, how these planes end up getting certified as Sport Pilot eligible is beyond me.

[Nomore767]

This RV6.5 is listed at $129k.

A brand new RV12 S-LSA with all the options is about $6k LESS than this and I'd bet that the RV12 has all the paperwork, all the documentation, and proper airworthiness certificates. Why would you even THINK about it?

Why did Vans not build this instead of doing all the expensive work on their 'designed S-LSA?'.

This ad is laughable…like the 'always hangared', 'no damage history' comments on 40-50 year old airplanes for sale. How about it's not always been hangared, and the log-books might show some mishaps but if it's been repaired well and inspected that's okay..just don't lie. It's a shame because it makes you cast doubt on the genuine folks selling planes.

This is a no-brainer to me…..step away from this RV6.5…and run like hell.

"Psst…hey buddy, wanna buy an LSA?".

[3Dreaming]

It's undeniable that some E-ABs meet the LSA requirements, and can be flown by Sport Pilots, or under SP rules. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I maintain that an RV-6 is most assuredly not one of them.

However, I can easily see how someone might think otherwise. Imagine that you've built an RV-6, limited max gross weight to 1320, pitched the prop for slow, and placarded the panel for an RPM limit slightly above idle. Now, you slap on vortex generators (or maybe rig the flaps so they won't retract all the way), go out and fly power-off stalls, and note that the airspeed indicator drops below 45 knots. Are you not now LSA legal?

The fallacy is that, in a stall, the angle of attack goes critical. If the wing is at a high angle of attack, so is the pitot tube. So, the airflow is diagonal across the pitot tube, and the ASI reads very low. This is why the LSA rule defines stall speed in terms of Calibrated, rather than Indicated, airspeed. In truth, 45 KIAS at a high angle of attack can really be well over 50 KCAS.

The thing is, you'd expect any DAR to know this! So, how these planes end up getting certified as Sport Pilot eligible is beyond me.

Paul, in the new CT's the indicated airspeed in the clean configuration is higher than the calibrated speed, but you are correct the the clean stall speed is calibrated speed and not indicated.
The other thing I tried to point out before is the DAR has nothing to do with whether an E/AB is a LSA or not. He is only there to make sure the airplane is safe and the paperwork is in order. It is flight testing and limits placed on it by the builder/owner that makes the determination. For an ELSA the DAR doesn't determine if it meets the LSA definition, but that it complies with the ASTM version of the airplane.

[airshowfan]

In a stall, the angle of attack goes critical. If the wing is at a high angle of attack, so is the pitot tube. So, the airflow is diagonal across the pitot tube, and the ASI reads very low. [...] In truth, 45 KIAS at a high angle of attack can really be well over 50 KCAS.

So could you maybe put the pitot tube really close to the underside of the wing, near the leading edge, where the wing slows down the air? That would get you an even lower reading!

This is why the LSA rule defines stall speed in terms of Calibrated, rather than Indicated, airspeed.

Oh, never mind

Now, you slap on vortex generators (or maybe rig the flaps so they won't retract all the way)...

That's a sneaky idea that hadn't occurred to me. Maybe put a bolt in the flap handle rail that stops the handle at some non-zero setting. You'll stall "clean" at 44 knots, and you probably won't want to go much faster than about 90 knots either... But then after getting the airworthiness certificate, the bolt is removed.

You guys are right, this whole thing exploits every sneaky way to get around the rules

The attitude of the builder about all this 'compliance dodging' was cavalier and unprincipled.

Yeah, no kidding.

This ad is laughable…like the 'always hangared', 'no damage history' comments on 40-50 year old airplanes for sale.

Seriously. I recently saw an ad that says "No known damage history". Known by whom? What a cop-out...

Why would you even THINK about it?

I'm not sure whether you're asking a rhetorical question... In any case, here is the answer, as far as I can tell: Because the RV-6 has much more speed, range, payload, and aerobatic capabilities than the RV-12 (if you ignore the limits that were set by the "RV-6.5" builder). I learned to fly in a SportStar and I now own an RV-6. It is a whole 'nother kind of machine.

The other thing I tried to point out before is the DAR has nothing to do with whether an E/AB is a LSA or not. He is only there to make sure the airplane is safe and the paperwork is in order. It is flight testing and limits placed on it by the builder/owner that makes the determination.

Wow, that is a really interesting point. So if the builder sets the weight limit at 1320 and the RPM limit at whatever gives you 120 knots, and if no one (e.g. the DAR, or the insurance company, or whatever FAA person might eventually ask the pilot "So you were flying this thing with no medical... Does it really stall at 44 knots clean?") has any particular reason to be skeptical about the stall speed, then boom, you have an EAB that can flown by a Sport Pilot. Hmmmm. Thank you for pointing that out. I hadn't put that together before.

[drseti]

I recently saw an ad that says "No known damage history". Known by whom? What a cop-out...

At the risk of stealing my own thunder:

I've recently been doing pre-purchase inspections of SportStars for those folks who somehow got the mistaken impression that I know something about those planes...

In a Trade-a-Plane ad, one of them claimed NDH (no damage history). Sure enough, inspecting the logbooks, there was no documentation that suggested the plane had ever sustained any kind of damage. The physical inspection, however, revealed massive repairs. Repairs of what, you might ask -- non-damage??

True enough, if you forget to make logbook entries when repairing damage, then there is no damage history!

(The above is included in the PowerPoint slides for my upcoming February EAA Webinar on LSA Documentation.)

[zaitcev]

Vickers is trying to bring up to market an S-LSA with a 180 hp IO-360, so it's not like it's completely unheard of. Several makers dipped their toes into 115 hp area before, of course. Anyone who's selling an S-LSA with Lycoming IO-233 is one. Zenth offers a factory option of ULpower 350i, if you want it (I read an article by Randy Schliffer, chief designer of RANS, who suggested that 350's 150 hp rating is overstated and it's more like 120 hp -- if that's the case, they take penalty by ASTM formula for nothing). And finally there's Evektor with a 914 turbo engine now.