What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Hi (new member)

lolpilot

I'm New Here
Hi everyone! I was referred here by the nice folks at Pilots of America (same username there) because of a question I asked about RV's over there. I'm a private pilot and I am instrument rated but I don't like flying IFR. I'm from St. Louis, but I have taken a 1 year contract to work out in Oklahoma City. I have some obligations I'll need to get back for, and I'll also want to come home fairly often to visit family and friends. After looking at rental options (speed, cost per hour, etc), clubs (speed, cost per hour, club dues) and ownership, they all seem fairly close to one another on paper, with ownership costing a little more. However, availability would be a lot better and I wouldn't be stepping on anyone's toes by having the airplane gone for entire weekends. Then after my contract I could sell the plane if I don't want to hold on to it or it just doesn't seem feasible.

I think the best planes that fit my mission would be VFR equipped RV-4's, RV-6's, or RV-6A's. I am tailwheel endorsed but have less than ten hours total, though I'll be logging more doing some recurrent. All of my tailwheel time is in a Decathlon. Could I get some real world numbers on things like insurance and operating/mx costs? And how difficult are the RV's to land if I got a conventional gear example?

Thanks!
 
The only way to answer the question about insurance is to request a quote from a broker. Several brokers are advertisers on this website (https://vansairforce.net/VAFA.htm). Recommend you give them a call with your specific current experience and a hull value and find out what you should expect.

This recent thread shows how some prospective RV owners have been surprised by insurance quotes https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=195923&highlight=Insurance especially for tail wheel aircraft.

Your insurance company will require transition training which as of today has become a little more complicated https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=197076

Second big expense is hangar or tie down. Will depend on where you are based.

The yearly condition inspection must be performed by an AP since you are not the builder.
 
If you are instrument rated and can remain very current, spend the money for an appropriately equipped aircraft. We're talking about your life, and you seem to have a mission that might induce some get-there-itis in a part of the country where IMC is frequently difficult to anticipate. You might never need it, but it is better to have the equipment and never need it, than find yourself in a jam, airborne and hemmed in, where you need it and don't have it. Alternatively, you must deliberately and consistently plan for weather contingencies and be disciplined about not going unless things and clear-and-a-million.

On the other hand, if you spend the money for a well equipped airplane, you'll likely get all your money back again when you sell it.
 
Last edited:
In my RV-4, landing with full flaps, there would be a time on the rollout when, if all the wheels were on the ground, there would still be some residual lift and the plane could get blown sideways on the runway -- too slow for crosswind controls to have any effect, fast enough for lift. An interesting sensation, first time I saw it.

In my RV-8, sometimes I wanted to dump the flaps to get better airflow over the rudder on rollout, but the electric flap switch had to be held in the up position and it was a distraction to operate it.

460 hours of my 840 total RV time is in taildraggers, and yes, it's really satisfying to do a wheel landing with a super gentle touchdown and still make the first turnoff. Really cool. But when I'm trying to get from A to B and I might be tired or whatever, the nosewheel is really nice.

As has been written over the years by well-respected and highly qualified writers, if you absolutely need to be there on schedule, take the airlines. If the weather looks good, hey! take the RV and have a great time.

There was one year that I had a three day window to fly from Georgia to Oshkosh. I wound up taking the airlines, and even they made a massive weather detour. Another year, weather was looking good till day of departure. I drove to the airport, put all the stuff in the car and drove to Oshkosh. Not a fun drive...

As for insurance costs, figure 1% of the hull value if your experience is acceptable, more than that while you're building experience. If you hire out your annual, figure that it will be about the same as a Cessna 150. Your mileage will vary, of course.

Other recent threads have talked about flying IFR in RVs.
 
RV-4 is great VFR, but...

Hi everyone! I was referred here by the nice folks at Pilots of America (same username there) because of a question I asked about RV's over there. I'm a private pilot and I am instrument rated but I don't like flying IFR. I'm from St. Louis, but I have taken a 1 year contract to work out in Oklahoma City. I have some obligations I'll need to get back for, and I'll also want to come home fairly often to visit family and friends. After looking at rental options (speed, cost per hour, etc), clubs (speed, cost per hour, club dues) and ownership, they all seem fairly close to one another on paper, with ownership costing a little more. However, availability would be a lot better and I wouldn't be stepping on anyone's toes by having the airplane gone for entire weekends. Then after my contract I could sell the plane if I don't want to hold on to it or it just doesn't seem feasible.

I think the best planes that fit my mission would be VFR equipped RV-4's, RV-6's, or RV-6A's. I am tailwheel endorsed but have less than ten hours total, though I'll be logging more doing some recurrent. All of my tailwheel time is in a Decathlon. Could I get some real world numbers on things like insurance and operating/mx costs? And how difficult are the RV's to land if I got a conventional gear example?

Thanks!

Welcome,
When possible I encourage you to donate to our editor(web hoster).

I've been flying the -4 for 5 years and 600+ hrs. It is a fantastic VFR machine, but most are not set up for "hard IFR". I know this from experience. Without an autopilot, it becomes tiring to hold/copy clearances/and IFR task manage. This is not a design flaw, but rather a function of the beautiful responsiveness of the controls.
Other features I consider mandatory in the soup:
Heated pitot
Canopy defroster

nice to have: deicing equipment on prop, and leading edges.

Mine is IFR certified, yet I was cautioned by many that I respect: this is NO IFR machine. I now know why.
Others may disagree with me. I respect their collective opinion.

I love my plane, and with your mission mind, you will love it as well.

With some good training, you will fly it with confidence. It is not hard to fly, it just does not fly like a Cessna/Piper.

Please PM me for my insurance and operating costs.

Happy Landings,
Daddyman
 
In point of fact, the FARs consider heated pitot tube(s) a requirement too.

Just for clarity's sake, here are the minimum equipment requirements for airplane operations under instrument flight rules:

No person may operate an airplane under IFR unless it has—
(a) A vertical speed indicator;
(b) A free-air temperature indicator;
(c) A heated pitot tube for each airspeed indicator;
(d) A power failure warning device or vacuum indicator to show the power available for gyroscopic instruments from each power source;
(e) An alternate source of static pressure for the altimeter and the airspeed and vertical speed indicators;
(f) At least two generators each of which is on a separate engine, or which any combination of one-half of the total number are rated sufficiently to supply the electrical loads of all required instruments and equipment necessary for safe emergency operation of the airplane; and
(g) Two independent sources of energy (with means of selecting either), of which at least one is an engine-driven pump or generator, each of which is able to drive all gyroscopic instruments and installed so that failure of one instrument or source does not interfere with the energy supply to the remaining instruments or the other energy source. For the purposes of this paragraph, each engine-driven source of energy must be on a different engine.
(h) For the purposes of paragraph (f) of this section, a continuous inflight electrical load includes one that draws current continuously during flight, such as radio equipment, electrically driven instruments, and lights, but does not include occasional intermittent loads.
(i) An airspeed indicating system with heated pitot tube or equivalent means for preventing malfunctioning due to icing.
(j) A sensitive altimeter.
(k) Instrument lights providing enough light to make each required instrument, switch, or similar instrument easily readable and installed so that the direct rays are shielded from the flight crewmembers' eyes and that no objectionable reflections are visible to them. There must be a means of controlling the intensity of illumination unless it is shown that nondimming instrument lights are satisfactory.

My personal minimums add a current GPS navigator sufficient to fly R-NAV GPS approaches and a precision autopilot.

If your personal minimums allow single pilot IFR in IMC, I would add to that that the autopilot should be capable of fully coupled approaches, IMHO.

In my recent experience, many contemporary side-by-side RVs on the market are so equipped.

The canopy defrost feature is a good idea. I don't have that and now I will investigate.

I have never seen an RV with prop or wing deicing equipment, but that doesn't mean they are not out there.
 
Last edited:
Incorrect info

In point of fact, the FARs consider heated pitot tube(s) a requirement too.

Just for clarity's sake, here are the minimum equipment requirements for airplane operations under instrument flight rules:

No person may operate an airplane under IFR unless it has—
(a) A vertical speed indicator;
(b) A free-air temperature indicator;
(c) A heated pitot tube for each airspeed indicator;
(d) A power failure warning device or vacuum indicator to show the power available for gyroscopic instruments from each power source;
(e) An alternate source of static pressure for the altimeter and the airspeed and vertical speed indicators;
(f) At least two generators each of which is on a separate engine, or which any combination of one-half of the total number are rated sufficiently to supply the electrical loads of all required instruments and equipment necessary for safe emergency operation of the airplane; and
(g) Two independent sources of energy (with means of selecting either), of which at least one is an engine-driven pump or generator, each of which is able to drive all gyroscopic instruments and installed so that failure of one instrument or source does not interfere with the energy supply to the remaining instruments or the other energy source. For the purposes of this paragraph, each engine-driven source of energy must be on a different engine.
(h) For the purposes of paragraph (f) of this section, a continuous inflight electrical load includes one that draws current continuously during flight, such as radio equipment, electrically driven instruments, and lights, but does not include occasional intermittent loads.
(i) An airspeed indicating system with heated pitot tube or equivalent means for preventing malfunctioning due to icing.
(j) A sensitive altimeter.
(k) Instrument lights providing enough light to make each required instrument, switch, or similar instrument easily readable and installed so that the direct rays are shielded from the flight crewmembers' eyes and that no objectionable reflections are visible to them. There must be a means of controlling the intensity of illumination unless it is shown that nondimming instrument lights are satisfactory.

My personal minimums add a current GPS navigator sufficient to fly R-NAV GPS approaches and a precision autopilot.

If your personal minimums allow single pilot IFR in IMC, I would add to that that the autopilot should be capable of fully coupled approaches, IMHO.

In my recent experience, many contemporary side-by-side RVs on the market are so equipped.

The canopy defrost feature is a good idea. I don't have that and now I will investigate.

I have never seen an RV with prop or wing deicing equipment, but that doesn't mean they are not out there.

Those requirements are from Part 125, which only applies to aircraft with 20 or more passenger seats. Part 135 also has similar requirements. We fall under 91.205.
 
Fly or Drive is an important question.

I think the best planes that fit my mission would be VFR equipped RV-4's, RV-6's, or RV-6A's. I am tailwheel endorsed but have less than ten hours total, though I'll be logging more doing some recurrent. All of my tailwheel time is in a Decathlon. Could I get some real world numbers on things like insurance and operating/mx costs? And how difficult are the RV's to land if I got a conventional gear example?

Thanks!

I'll start with a saying about the three "F's" that goes "If it Flies or Floats, owning is more expensive than paying by the hour." Figuring out the last F is up to you.

TLDR: If I were you I'd join a club (or a share if a kind RV owner want to make you a flying only partner). You'd be far ahead over owning. Fly home when all the stars align, and plan on making lots of 7 hour drives or commercial flights.


I was in a situation similar to yours decades ago, living in Minneapolis with almost all my friends and family in Chicago. That is a similar distance to your scenario over a relatively similar weather/terrain, although I was flying/driving Holstein country.

Costs on paper are one thing to consider, but the other is the mission itself. I don't consider a Pilot's license to actually have that much utility. Meaning, it isn't nearly as useful as you might think. Is it cool? Does it make me happy? Does it make me proud? Yes. Does it save me time and money? Rarely. There is another GA saying that goes "Time to spare, go by air."

There is a major interstate between OKC and STL with about a 7.25 hour drive. That is a pretty easy drive to make in a day. The flight time for the same trip in an RV4/6 is roughly 2.5 hours. While that may seem like a big savings, it doesn't take into account getting to the airport, preflight, loading, taxi, tie-down etc. Or, and more significantly, the time and stress of constantly worrying about the weather and the plane the entire time you're in St. Louis.

I've been in several flying clubs and there is a great deal to be said for them and having the club officers worry about management/logistics, although you are correct that scheduling can be a problem. IMO though, you should only buy a plane because you want to own a plane, and also want deal with everything that goes along with ownership.

Last, none of this even takes into account the headache/stress of searching for and buying a plane. I looked for almost 6 months before I found the right RV. I love having my RV6, and it is great for trips, but if I wanted to commute between OKC/STL for a year I'd buy an Accord or Corolla.


Regarding TW time, I had 3 hours in a Citabria when I purchased an RV6. Those are the only two taildraggers I've flown so I don't have very wide experiences, but I believe you should be fine with some transition training.
 
Those requirements are from Part 125, which only applies to aircraft with 20 or more passenger seats. Part 135 also has similar requirements. We fall under 91.205.

Thanks Cole. An excellent point! Here are the requirements for 91.205:

Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required in addition to those required for VFR (day) and VFR (night) operations:

(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.

(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:

(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in § 121.305(j) of this chapter; and

(ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of ±80 degrees of pitch and ±120 degrees of roll and installed in accordance with § 29.1303(g) of this chapter.

(4) Slip-skid indicator.

(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.

(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation.

(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.

(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).

(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).

My earlier comments apply to my personal minimums for instrument operations, and my airplane is so equipped accordingly.
 
Last edited:
First of all guys, thanks for the thoughtful responses! I really appreciate it. I actually went to the airport where I did my training today and did a flight review and a bunch of tailwheel landings. It came back to me pretty quick and I think my landings were better today than when I initially did my endorsement.

Regarding joining a club, and owning because you want to own - I get that. The IFR didn't open up more flying opportunities, in my case. It just gave me a more academic reason of why I called the FBO and canceled my rental for the day. The only time I ever planned on actually using my rating was shortly after I got it, and I decided I wasn't confident enough in my IFR abilities to do it, so I cancelled and drove the 2 hours to go see my friend.

It looks like the biggest club in OKC often has a waiting list, and it doesn't have many "speedy" planes. I've also heard there is often a waiting list. That's what originally started me looking at hangars out there...

I got an insurance quote for me with an RV, and while it was a hair more than I expected, it was a lot less than I thought it might be, and I was pleasantly surprised. It definitely looks like I would be better off with a tri gear like a 6A or an RV12, in terms of insurance, but it was manageable.

Regarding owning / flying commercial - yes I do want to own haha. Who would buy one of these things and NOT want to own? I get the F/F/F argument, but I have owned a boat and found it to be a great experience! It's also a great parallel. I managed what I wanted out of the boat and I managed expectations. Realistically I bought an inexpensive, not new boat that had a new engine and drive. My friends and I used it over two summers, and I sold it for $400 less than I bought it for. When I looked at the cost of renting a boat as many times as we used it, I came out ahead. But there was another moment. The rental places at the lake we went to didn't want you to keep them overnight. We convinced one rental place to do it and the manager told me that they counted the number of scratches on the boat before they gave us the keys. So the first night we pulled out of a cove one of my buddies sits down next to the helm and says "beautiful evening." And I was like "yeah... even if this didn't save any money off the cost of renting these things, this right here is worth the price of admission."

Regarding flying commercial, I've kind of started to resent it. I dislike being treated like cattle, the whole runaround with it, etc. And if I didn't have access to a plane I would be forced to fly commercial, because I couldn't really take two days to make the drive to and from unless it were a long weekend. Still looking at it, still crunching numbers. That ruling on transition training is a nice speedbump, though...
 
We (wife is a pilot) own a Decathlon and a RV7. The RV7 lands a few knots faster than the Decathlon. Wife and I both agree the RV is better in a crosswind. The RV is no more difficult to keep straight on landing, but requires more initial right rudder on takeoff than a Decathlon.

Maintenance costs depend on how much you can do on your own. You can legally perform all maintenance tasks with out having an A&P license except for the yearly condition inspection, which can be done by the builder ( if he has the repairman's certificate) or by an A&P.
 
We (wife is a pilot) own a Decathlon and a RV7. The RV7 lands a few knots faster than the Decathlon. Wife and I both agree the RV is better in a crosswind. The RV is no more difficult to keep straight on landing, but requires more initial right rudder on takeoff than a Decathlon.

Maintenance costs depend on how much you can do on your own. You can legally perform all maintenance tasks with out having an A&P license except for the yearly condition inspection, which can be done by the builder ( if he has the repairman's certificate) or by an A&P.

This is helpful. I'm comfortable doing anything that I would already be allowed to do on a certified plane as an owner/pilot, and I know my way around a toolbox thanks to working on cars and bikes. I keep a good relationship with my mechanics for those and on a couple occasions I've done a "can you walk me through this procedure" type of deal with them. I'd hope to do the same with an airplane. One of my big attractions to RV's is avionics and such, as well as the ability to use field overhauled engines a bit more freely if need be.
 
Back
Top