RV4 for low time pilot?

This is a forum to ask questions regarding the different models of Vans Aircraft. If you are having problems deciding which one to build, this is the place to go.
LRodriguez

RV4 for low time pilot?

Post by LRodriguez »

New pilot here looking to purchase a first airplane. I understand that the RV9 is designed for low time pilots but the RV4 is much less expensive in the used market. Is this a safe airplane for a low time pilot?

Spike
Chief Rivet Banger
Posts: 4013
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD
Contact:

Post by Spike »

Hmm, I would say that a given safety level is dependant on the way at which it is approached by the pilot. What is your experience ? How much time is "low time" ?

-- John

Guest

Post by Guest »

Very low time. My solo is tomorrow :-)

My original plan was to finish my primary training in a 172 then purchase a C120/140. After some transition training, I'd settle in at a local grass strip and build some time.

I started thinking about an RV4 when I noticed that, dollar wise, they're not much of a stretch from a C140 and I'd be getting much more plane for the money.

So I guess the real question is: Is an RV4 any less safe than a C140 as a low cost time builder for a new pilot?

Spike
Chief Rivet Banger
Posts: 4013
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD
Contact:

Post by Spike »

Wow, that is low time. I would suggest getting a ride in one first. I personally wouldnt recommend an RV-4 to you this early. Maybe someone who owns one here will comment.

-- John

Luis Rodriguez
Class G
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:29 pm
Location: Lovettsville, VA

Post by Luis Rodriguez »

Hey Spike. I just noticed that we're neigbors. I'm in Lovettsville, VA. Most of my training has been at FDK where you have your 172 parked. Small world.

p.s. Sorry about the user name change. I only now created an account.

Spike
Chief Rivet Banger
Posts: 4013
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD
Contact:

Post by Spike »

No problem. Welcome to the group! As far as Lovettsville VA, I pass through quite a bit on my motorcycle. Sure is building up quick out there.

-- John

User avatar
svanarts
Air Marshall
Posts: 1512
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:19 pm
Location: Modesto, CA
Contact:

Post by svanarts »

Anonymous wrote:I started thinking about an RV4 when I noticed that, dollar wise, they're not much of a stretch from a C140 and I'd be getting much more plane for the money.
You are right in that they are a lot of plane for the money (in a very small package :mrgreen: ) But as for being not much of a stretch from a Cessna 140, I dunno 'bout that. The cheapest RV-4 I've ever seen was about $35,000. Most of them go in the neighborhood of $45,000 - 55,000. Mine cost me $35,000 to build. If I could have bought one cheaper, I would have.

Okay, enough lecturing on price. As far as flyability... I say get some more time under your belt. Especially Citabria time. A 60's or later Citabria flies close to the same approach speeds as an RV-4 but the 4 is easier to land. Get comfortable in the Citabria and the 4 shouldn't be a problem.

Luis Rodriguez
Class G
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:29 pm
Location: Lovettsville, VA

Post by Luis Rodriguez »

I guess it's all relative. I've been looking at C140s in the $24k range with the nice ones being more like $30k. There's a nice looking RV4 on TradeAPlane right now for $39k. If it weren't for the safety issue, it would be a no brainer.

Here's the part that I don't follow though: If the Citabria has a similar approach to an RV4 but is harder to land then where's the advantage? If I'm going to be flying with an instructor anyway then why not just skip the Citabria and take the lessons in the RV? If it's easier to land then it should be safer right? Is it because I won't be able to find an instructor who will train me in the RV?

Spike
Chief Rivet Banger
Posts: 4013
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD
Contact:

Post by Spike »

I think what he was getting at was the difference in insurance. Its more likely easier to get insurance on a certified tailwheel aircraft for a low time pilot than it is an experamental tailwheel aircraft because of the additional exposure to risk. It might be worth it to call a broker and see what you can find out.

-- John

Luis Rodriguez
Class G
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:29 pm
Location: Lovettsville, VA

Post by Luis Rodriguez »

Ah yes.. Insurance. I should have thought of that. I had a hard enough time getting a quote for a C140 and even that wasn't cheap. I guess I should just stick to my original plan with the Cessna and look again in a couple of years.

BTW: I soloed today. It went swimmingly. The first landing was ugly (loosing a 240lb instructor does interesting things to the landing flair). The next two where right on the money though. I can’t get rid of this silly grin. :mrgreen:

User avatar
728GD
Class E
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:27 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Post by 728GD »

I'm a new comer to the form, but I have a 6 and previously owned a C140. They are both good airplanes, just different preformance catigories. The 140 actually is more of a handful on the ground, not bad, just a little less forgiving. The spring gear will test you at times. The rv is more forgiving, but things happen much much faster. I would recommend traing in the 140 or as suggested previsously, another tail wheel. Your insurance company will thank you for it. Then progress into the rv after you have some time under your belt. Good luck.

Spike
Chief Rivet Banger
Posts: 4013
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD
Contact:

Post by Spike »

CONGRATULATIONS!!! :good job: :good job: :good job: :good job: :good job:

So, you didnt wear a good shirt to the airport today did you ? As for the landings good job. I own part of a 172 and I sometimes feel like I cant get 3 good landings in a row. Its definately different the first few times your up there by yourself. Im very happy for you !!


-- John

Luis Rodriguez
Class G
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:29 pm
Location: Lovettsville, VA

Post by Luis Rodriguez »

spike wrote:So, you didnt wear a good shirt to the airport today did you ?
LOL. My instructor was nice enough to warn me about the solo shirt thing so I dressed appropriately.

User avatar
svanarts
Air Marshall
Posts: 1512
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:19 pm
Location: Modesto, CA
Contact:

Post by svanarts »

Luis Rodriguez wrote:I guess it's all relative. I've been looking at C140s in the $24k range with the nice ones being more like $30k. There's a nice looking RV4 on TradeAPlane right now for $39k. If it weren't for the safety issue, it would be a no brainer.
:o 140's go that high now? Wow. As for a $39,000 RV-4 I would have that checked VERY carefully. It could be a great find or it could be that low for a reason.

User avatar
svanarts
Air Marshall
Posts: 1512
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:19 pm
Location: Modesto, CA
Contact:

Post by svanarts »

spike wrote:I think what he was getting at was the difference in insurance. Its more likely easier to get insurance on a certified tailwheel aircraft for a low time pilot than it is an experamental tailwheel aircraft because of the additional exposure to risk. It might be worth it to call a broker and see what you can find out.

-- John
Wow. That's a great point. I wish I had been getting at that. I think what my point was though that my opinion is it's better to learn in a plane with bad habbits. It's always easier to transition to (relatively) docile airplanes than the other way around. Plus, in something like a 120, 140, Champ, Cub, or especially a Luscombe, you really learn to make the airplane do what you want. You really learn to use the rudders.

Congratulations on the 172 solo, Luis. :yay: I'm sure your first landing was still better than my first landing in the 172 I just took my BFR in. We landed at my home field, bounced hard a couple of times, and even the grizzled old CFI grabbed for the handles to hold on! I promised that I could land my RV-4 better than that. :dunno: I just forgot how heavy a 172 is compared to an RV! The next landing was much better.

Spike
Chief Rivet Banger
Posts: 4013
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD
Contact:

Post by Spike »

Dont worry about it. I think its impossible to consistantly land a 172 well. My first part of primary training was done in Tampico's (TB9) and it was awesome. It had a higher wing loading than a 172 does so it was more stable and with the low wing in ground effect I got real comfortable in greasing it on. The latter part of training was done in a 172 and that is what I now own. I find it difficult to consistantly get a greaser in that airplane. Bring back the low wing is my modo :)


-- John

User avatar
svanarts
Air Marshall
Posts: 1512
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:19 pm
Location: Modesto, CA
Contact:

Post by svanarts »

Your RV will pleasantly surprize you then. They all land like a dream. You're going to love this plane!

g_e_young
Class E
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:05 am

Post by g_e_young »

Do the rest of your training in a 140 or a Citabria and I think transitioning to an RV4 would be pretty easy. IMO, the more time you spend in tri-cycle gear planes the harder the transition will be.

grant-

mustangxr

It can be done

Post by mustangxr »

Hi There,
I was talking to an RV-4 owner a week or so ago. He mentioned that he had taught all of his three children to fly in his '4. He also said two of them went on to Beavers and Cessna 185 type aircraft directly from the '4.

I am not recommending this, only passing on an observation that it can be done. I have very little time on a '4, but my one experience in the pattern showed me what a different plane it is in comparison to my Citabria, which I have just sold. I flew the '4 in a tight low circuit peculiar to our grass strip which lies under a control zone for an adjacent bigger airport. I kept it in tight, just like I do the Citabria. The outcome was that I crossed the threshold at 200 feet and over 100 miles per hour. Needless to say the owner took over at that point and made another circuit. Of course the '4 did not have rudder pedals in the rear seat which precluded a slipping turn onto final which I do so effectively on the Citabria. However, the RV-4 bird is nothing like a Citabria in the realm of drag, which is so plentifull on the Bellanca. I did not get to make a landing on the '4 and did not want to with no pedals, but watching the owner land, it seemed there was little or no tap-dancing on the rudders that would be common to a Pitts for instance after landing.

Cheers, Pete

User avatar
svanarts
Air Marshall
Posts: 1512
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:19 pm
Location: Modesto, CA
Contact:

Post by svanarts »

That lack of tap dancing isn't just peculiar to the 4's. The 6 I flew was the same way, it pretty much when whatever way you pointed it. Both 6 I flew and the 4 I now fly are also much less susceptible to crosswindiness. I used to fly a Champ and it was always, "stir the chile and tap dance" when landing.

As far as a 4 having less drag that is true but only to a certain extent. Slow it down and it's amazing how fast they will drop out of the sky. I've never NEEDED to slip my 4. If I need to come down fast, I slow to 80 MPH, put in full flaps, and slow down to 70- 75 mph. It starts dropping like a rock, just like I'm slipping. I'm still just practicing for short strips though.

Post Reply