What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-6 empty weight

H

Hanzey

I'm New Here
I've been looking to buy an RV-6, and the couple I've looked at have empty weights in the 1140-1180# range. Both have O-360s w/CS props, and IFR panels. Does this seem reasonable, or too heavy? Both are certified with 1800# gross weights. In the real world, what do RV-6 empty weights run? Does 1140-1180# become a real concern.

Thanks
 
Hanzey said:
I've been looking to buy an RV-6, and the couple I've looked at have empty weights in the 1140-1180# range. Both have O-360s w/CS props, and IFR panels. Does this seem reasonable, or too heavy? Both are certified with 1800# gross weights. In the real world, what do RV-6 empty weights run? Does 1140-1180# become a real concern.
Click to expand...

My 6A was in that range, with it's 0-360 & Hartzell C/S prop. Gross weight was set at 1850. Would often get remarks from other RV pilots, on how the controls felt good & nimble, and the way it would trim out so well. Yes, it's heavier than some, but the C/S prop would always out perform the fixed pitch, when you consider the range from take off, to cruise, to landing. It could even get as good fuel economy as a 9A with an 0-320, if powered back. However, it does require 10 more knots on the landing speed versus the 9.

L.Adamson
 
RV6 Empty Weight

My RV6 weighs in at 1063# but that is with a wood fixed pitch prop and an 0-320 engine.
I suspect the weights you are looking at aren't too far from the norm with the combination you mentioned.
 
I consider my 6 bloated at 1056 pounds with a metal fixed pitch O-360. I know of some 6s under 1,000 with wood props. I think a lot of people must use insulation, sound deadening, fancy leather upholstery and panels with lots of gadgets. ALL of those things make the airplane perform worse and handle worse.

Many people must like the trade-offs.
 
n5lp said:
I consider my 6 bloated at 1056 pounds with a metal fixed pitch O-360. I know of some 6s under 1,000 with wood props. I think a lot of people must use insulation, sound deadening, fancy leather upholstery and panels with lots of gadgets. ALL of those things make the airplane perform worse and handle worse.

Many people must like the trade-offs.
Click to expand...

And someone said my 6A would handle like a truck. Turns out, it handled better than some of it's lighter weight relatives. I did go the leather seats for comfort though. I did have the heavier old starter, two axis A/P, dual brakes & six pac instruments. And of course, the nose gear adds a bit more.
 
Mine is 1090#, IO360, Hartzell BA CS, nice paint. Minimum interior but I do have floor insulation and carpet and leather ORegon Aero seats, arm rests, and upper side panels. I set my gross at #1700 to be "legal" with me, my girl, #100 of baggage and full fuel. Mine is VFR but with provisions for IFR which would add around 10# if I made the choice to go that way, maybe 15#.
#1140-80 would not concern me. I know of some much heavier. They have just as much fun with their airplanes as I do with mine. However, if it was mine, I would start doing a weight vs benefit analysis and probably put it on a diet. But that's just me.
You can do a search and open up the gross weight above Van's recommendation can of worms if you want.
 
1096# here with an IO-360, RV 200 prop, B&C starter, PC 680 battery, no interior panels, cloth seats, Garmin 300xl, 1 KX 155, transponder and a D-10 basic panel.

I list those items because I suspect that is where the weight delta's are determined - engine, prop, batteries, avionics and interiors. Can't see how there can be a huge difference in airframe structural weights from one 6 to the next.

I would say you are in the fat part of the bell curve for 6 weights with that equipment. They do feel considerably more sporty solo with low fuel than when two up with a full bag of gas and luggage.

100# weight delta's will get lost except at the extremes of loading - real heavy or real light.
 
Checking in here with minimum cloth interior, 0-360, fixed pitch Sensenich. I also have floor insulation but minimal instrument panel so I saved weight there. Built to night VFR standards.

I had a build statement hanging on my plans board. "Build light, Fly fast" which really meant nimble and quick.

All 6/7 pilots who have flown with me liked the feel and speed (compared to theirs) and commented on same.

Mine came in at 1037 painted.
 
Hanzey said:
I've been looking to buy an RV-6, and the couple I've looked at have empty weights in the 1140-1180# range. Both have O-360s w/CS props, and IFR panels. Does this seem reasonable, or too heavy? Both are certified with 1800# gross weights. In the real world, what do RV-6 empty weights run? Does 1140-1180# become a real concern.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Based on a survey I have of 50+ RV-6 and RV-6A, the empty weights are about 100 lbs above the average of ~1080 lbs. My opinion is they are heavy but this is a very controversial subject on this forum.

Side note is that they are not certified for 1800 lbs as experimentals are not certified.
 
Hanzey said:
I've been looking to buy an RV-6, and the couple I've looked at have empty weights in the 1140-1180# range. Both have O-360s w/CS props, and IFR panels. Does this seem reasonable, or too heavy? Both are certified with 1800# gross weights. In the real world, what do RV-6 empty weights run? Does 1140-1180# become a real concern.

Thanks
Click to expand...

This is a very subjective question with no definitive answer.

But my opinion....1140-1180 lbs is a pig of a RV-6. And I don't think you will enjoy flying an RV-6 at 1800 lbs after you get accustomed to flying at lighter weights. So if you consider 1600 lbs a more pleasant gross weight (as the RV-6 was designed), the planes you are considering have limited payload.

In the interest of full disclosure, my RV-6 was 1010 when new in 1999 (O-320, fixed Sensenich metal prop, paint, digital minimal IFR panel). A light RV-6 handles so sweetly I hardly ever top the tanks any more. :)
 
Last edited:
Sam Buchanan said:
This is a very subjective question with no definitive answer.

But my opinion....1140-1180 lbs is a pig of a RV-6. And I don't think you will enjoy flying an RV-6 at 1800 lbs after you get accustomed to flying at lighter weights. So if you consider 1600 lbs a more pleasant gross weight (as the RV-6 was designed), the planes you are considering have limited payload.

In the interest of full disclosure, my RV-6 was 1010 when new in 1999 (O-320, fixed Sensenich metal prop, paint, digital minimal IFR panel). A light RV-6 handles so sweetly I hardly ever top the tanks any more. :)
Click to expand...

Yep,

The fixed pitch guys need to have their say. My number one expenditure was to go with a constant speed prop. I do live in a higher elevation area, where constant speeds show their "stuff".............and I wouldn't care to own an RV without one. Most RV owners around here feel the same, and I've never seen a C/S owner around here, care to change to a fixed pitch. C/S props are heavier, but they don't have to make a compromise between climb & pitch.

As to the "pig" comment................not hardly! My heavier C/S equipped RV6A could easily out perform a lighter fixed pitch version in takeoff distance & climb. It's also quieter in flight. A fixed pitch can only do better if it's specifically pitched for optimum climb or cruise. You never get it to do both, which is why you see so many F/P owners going for a re-pitch. BTW- the C/S also allows much more flexibility as a built in air-brake for the landing pattern. We could do 2000 fpm descents down a mountain canyon to a landing, and loosing airspeed at the same time. The
F/P planes didn't have a chance in this scenario.

L.Adamson
 
Well, if we're comparing weights... 999# with O-320-E2D, polished metal, VFR panel, sound deadening foam under the floorboards, carpet from firewall to baggage bulkhead, and leather Classic Aero seats. Cheap side panels (fabric over cardboard) beside the seats, but no other interior upholstery. I'd love to trade some of my light weight to get a constant-speed prop someday though, exactly for the reasons L.Adamson mentions.

And I know it will just get L.Adamson going, but i'll point out that those of you who are setting your gross at higher than Van's recommended to "keep it legal" when you want to operate at more than 1600 pounds, run the risk of problems if you ever need an insurance claim while you're operating at higher gross, if the cause of your claim is traced back to the loading. The designer of the kit recommends a certain gross for a reason, and he has not *in writing* authorized anything higher. So be sure you have good documented reason why you think it's safe to fly above his recommended limit.
 
Sam Buchanan said:
This is a very subjective question with no definitive answer.

But my opinion....1140-1180 lbs is a pig of a RV-6. And I don't think you will enjoy flying an RV-6 at 1800 lbs after you get accustomed to flying at lighter weights. So if you consider 1600 lbs a more pleasant gross weight (as the RV-6 was designed), the planes you are considering have limited payload.

In the interest of full disclosure, my RV-6 was 1010 when new in 1999 (O-320, fixed Sensenich metal prop, paint, digital minimal IFR panel). A light RV-6 handles so sweetly I hardly ever top the tanks any more. :)
Click to expand...

L.Adamson said:
Yep,

The fixed pitch guys need to have their say. My number one expenditure was to go with a constant speed prop. I do live in a higher elevation area, where constant speeds show their "stuff".............and I wouldn't care to own an RV without one. Most RV owners around here feel the same, and I've never seen a C/S owner around here, care to change to a fixed pitch. C/S props are heavier, but they don't have to make a compromise between climb & pitch.

As to the "pig" comment................not hardly! My heavier C/S equipped RV6A could easily out perform a lighter fixed pitch version in takeoff distance & climb. It's also quieter in flight. A fixed pitch can only do better if it's specifically pitched for optimum climb or cruise. You never get it to do both, which is why you see so many F/P owners going for a re-pitch. BTW- the C/S also allows much more flexibility as a built in air-brake for the landing pattern. We could do 2000 fpm descents down a mountain canyon to a landing, and loosing airspeed at the same time. The
F/P planes didn't have a chance in this scenario.

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

I knew L.Adamson would have a rebuttal for my comments. ;)

However, I never recommended a fixed pitch prop in my post and this thread isn't even about which prop is "better". The thread is about empty weight, how the plane is equipped is coincidental to the topic. And the comments about the excellent flight characteristics of a light RV-6 reflect my own preferences. My only regret is that many RVers will never have the opportunity to sample the delightful handling of a light RV because most RVs these days are built heavier than in years past.

But that has never discouraged Larry from expounding on how his choice of equipment is the absolute best. :)
 
Last edited:
power to weight comparisons...

It might provide an interesting perspective on the lightweight versus pig issue to look at power to weight ratio... I suspect that handling is pretty similar across similar ratios regardless of weight.

For real comparison we should probably use flying weight rather than empty...

In my lightest flying configuration my power to weight is 0.154 hp/lb
In Pig mode, fully loaded it is 0.110 hp/lb
 
Sam Buchanan said:
I knew L.Adamson would have a rebuttal for my comments. ;)

However, I never recommended a fixed pitch prop in my post and this thread isn't even about which prop is "better". The thread is about empty weight, how the plane is equipped is coincidental to the topic. And the comments about the excellent flight characteristics of a light RV-6 reflect my own preferences. My only regret is that many RVers will never have the opportunity to sample the delightful handling of a light RV because most RVs these days are built heavier than in years past.

But that has never discouraged Larry from expounding on how his choice of equipment is the absolute best. :)
Click to expand...

In most cases, a constant speed prop, especially a metal Hartzell, will add weight to the airplane.
 
[email protected] said:
It might provide an interesting perspective on the lightweight versus pig issue to look at power to weight ratio... I suspect that handling is pretty similar across similar ratios regardless of weight.

For real comparison we should probably use flying weight rather than empty...

In my lightest flying configuration my power to weight is 0.154 hp/lb
In Pig mode, fully loaded it is 0.110 hp/lb
Click to expand...

Don't confuse power to weight, which translates to acceleration and climb, with span loading, wing loading or some other measure which relates to the airplane's handling. Any of 'em handle very differently when they are light vs heavy.
 
Kyle Boatright said:
Don't confuse power to weight, which translates to acceleration and climb, with span loading, wing loading or some other measure which relates to the airplane's handling. Any of 'em handle very differently when they are light vs heavy.
Click to expand...

Good points Kyle. However, my 6 handles only slightly different when solo and near empty vs at full gross, not very different at all. Even the 3, at least the one I flew, was only slightly better in handling than my 6. I might just be lucky to have such a well balanced machine. Perhaps my forward cg has something to do with it, I don't know.
I think the range of "good" handling vs "great" handling is pretty narrow when we are talking RV's, especially when you start comparing them to other machines.
 
There are two common factors that should be kept in mind when evaluating the opinions expressed in this thread (and most others for that matter).

1. It is human nature for a person to defend choices they made regarding the build of their own RV (even if statements they make directly contradict the generally accepted laws of physics and aerodynamics).

2. People?s opinions of how a particular RV fly's, is dependent on what they are comparing it too. When compared to most of the lower performing certificated aircraft that most pilots are accustomed to flying, even an overweight ("pig) RV-6(A) will seem like a high performance sport plane.
Honestly compare that same overweight RV to a number of light weight examples, and the differences are very apparent.

Keep in mind that issue 1 usually trumps issue 2... People that have experience comparing the flying qualities of multiple RV's will still strongly defend their personal choices. Or it's possible that all the RV's they have flown would fall into the bovine category...:D
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
There are two common factors that should be kept in mind when evaluating the opinions expressed in this thread (and most others for that matter).

1. It is human nature for a person to defend choices they made regarding the build of their own RV (even if statements they make directly contradict the generally accepted laws of physics and aerodynamics).

2. People’s opinions of how a particular RV fly's, is dependent on what they are comparing it too. When compared to most of the lower performing certificated aircraft that most pilots are accustomed to flying, even an overweight ("pig) RV-6(A) will seem like a high performance sport plane.
Honestly compare that same overweight RV to a number of light weight examples, and the differences are very apparent.

Keep in mind that issue 1 usually trumps issue 2... People that have experience comparing the flying qualities of multiple RV's will still strongly defend their personal choices. Or it's possible that all the RV's they have flown would fall into the bovine category...:D
Click to expand...

... or it could simply be how people define "handling" Scott. That is a pretty obscure, broad based, word....
You are absolutely correct however on both points. I do #1 all the time :)
PS - I didn't say my 6 didn't handle differently at wieght. It just isn't much different.
 
Last edited:
49clipper

My -6 came in at 1043# til I installed the TruTrack ADI2 AP, now its 1067#. O-320/Sensenich metal prop/Oregon aero seats/ cloth side panels/nothing on the floor/night VFR panel. That AP is heavy, but I sure love it.
Just for comparison.
 
azrv6 said:
Well, the LSA capable RV-6.5 for sale on Barnstormers has everybody beat.
Click to expand...

Found it. Looks like a nicely equipped -6. With 10" Skyview, Garmin 696, Dynon Transponder, and Autopilot servos. 888 lb Empty, 1320 Gross. Cheeky that the ad says it has a 432lb "useful load." Doesn't sound very useful when full fuel tanks is 230 of that.
 
Last edited:
1021 lb

RV-6 YO360-A1A - FP metal Sensenich 72/85. 1021 lb first flight with hybrid steam/Dynon panel, leather seats, insulated firewall, basic carpet, primed structure, Rustoleum interior and unpainted exterior. 1039 lb with added Reif engine heater, sunshade and complex paint scheme. 1650 lb max per Van's.

Jim Sharkey
 
PaulRV6 said:
My -6 is 985#. O-320 with sterba wood prop. Basic VFR. Painted interior with carpet floors.

Paul
Click to expand...

When I first flew my -9, it came out at 990 lbs, despite my best efforts. That is for a day/night VFR plane with an O-290 and Catto prop, painted interior, carpeted floors, etc.

After I changed to the O-360, Classic Aero leather side panels, replaced the panel, added an auto pilot, etc. it grew to 1080 pounds.

While the -9 is still a delight to fly, the difference those extra 90 lbs makes is amazing.

Regarding the -9 comparison to the -6, I would think, but don't know, that since the -9 has a longer wing, horizontal, vertical, and fuselage than a -6, the bear fuselage would weigh more.

(Had I put an O-320 up front, I might have been able to save 20 lbs +/-.)
 
Mine is 1301#

So where is the weight?

The fuselage is 10" longer
All the the fuselage skins that aren't .040 have been increased to the next thickness.
The wings have been beefed up in several places plus a 52 gallon fuel tank.
Battery cables run to aft of the luggage compartment.
The engine mount is quite a bit heavier.
The brakes are heavier.
A longer heavier cowl.
An I.O.540 engine and heavier prop.

I guess it is not an RV anymore!
 
L.Adamson said:
Yep,

The fixed pitch guys need to have their say. My number one expenditure was to go with a constant speed prop. I do live in a higher elevation area, where constant speeds show their "stuff".............and I wouldn't care to own an RV without one. Most RV owners around here feel the same, and I've never seen a C/S owner around here, care to change to a fixed pitch. C/S props are heavier, but they don't have to make a compromise between climb & pitch.

As to the "pig" comment................not hardly! My heavier C/S equipped RV6A could easily out perform a lighter fixed pitch version in takeoff distance & climb. It's also quieter in flight. A fixed pitch can only do better if it's specifically pitched for optimum climb or cruise. You never get it to do both, which is why you see so many F/P owners going for a re-pitch. BTW- the C/S also allows much more flexibility as a built in air-brake for the landing pattern. We could do 2000 fpm descents down a mountain canyon to a landing, and loosing airspeed at the same time. The
F/P planes didn't have a chance in this scenario.

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

I'm glad I built my RV4 to Van's plans for a sport airplane by keeping it light with a 320-E2D and a wood FP prop. Having read some of the posts here I might have been discouraged from flying into many of the backcountry strips located in ID,MT,OR or WA. Nor would I have flown this airplane quite easily near gross Wt on a flight over the San Juans at 17500. I'm thinking this light fighter never knew what it was up against when in aerial one on one conquests with the 180hp/CS opponent and won. Of course that's a whole other realm of aviation which is generally not mentioned here and I digress.

It is true however that having the advantage of HP/CS will obscure what the other guy does with finesse:)

Oh, this RV4 has spent its entire 23 years flying Colorado.
 
I think the OP wanted opinions on 6's, not 4's, and the weights for two airplanes he was looking at. You can argue all day on weight vs "features" and argue even more about features vs benefit. All you will end up with is a fine demonstration of Scott's golden rule #1.
 
Light is always better. I flew 66RV for several years giving transition training it was very light at 965 lbs 0320 Sensenich prop.It was a very nice flying, light on the controls and fast airplane. I was able to out climb ands out run more than one 0-360 powered plane. Having flown several hundred different RVs i can tell you that the heavy ones might climb like a skyrocket but after you get past about 1065 lbs (RV-6) they begin to fly more like heavy sleds than a delightful light control plane. Brute climb performance is only one piece of the pie. I have flown RV-6s with an empty weight of nearly 1300 lbs and these airplanes do not fly nearly as nice as light weight planes. These planes typically have 200hp IO360s and yes they have brute power and climb performance but they tend to run out of elevator way too soon on landing and also tend to be heavy on the controls. I have also flown planes loaded way over gross up to maybe 2000 lbs gross weight. These planes also fly terrible to the point where you must push forward on the stick when landing rather than pull back when you are doing the landing flair. Heavy planes also tend to be over pitch sensitive. So my recommendation to the guy wanting to find a nice flying airplane is find the lightest one you can and it will be a nicer flying plane.

Interesting i have flown many other types too, Cessna 140 comes to mind. I have flown these planes with the C-85 0-200 and 0-235. While the 0235 planes have lots of brute climb power and and can indicate 140MPH (VNE) in level flight they are certainly not the best flying airplanes. I dont presently own an RV so Scotts #1 dont have any bearing on me. Best Mike
 
too much fuss on light planes... need light people!

Light plane... great! Performance is really about flight weight, NOT aircraft weight alone. Yea, yea, the plane is a big part of the equation but it is not the only part.

The best thing that most of us can do to improve performance is to lose 10 lbs ;)
 
Michael Seager said:
Light is always better. I flew 66RV for several years giving transition training it was very light at 965 lbs 0320 Sensenich prop.It was a very nice flying, light on the controls and fast airplane...
Click to expand...

Thread drift for sure, but that just brings back so many memories. i flew over to Fort Worth for my transition training with Mike, and still remember looking at that airplane in awe. I get to fly this??

The one hour flight was probably the most productive time I have ever spent in an airplane. Every minute was a learning opportunity. I still remember many details, including what the control pressures were like when approaching the stall. Yes it was a delightful airplane.

As it was set up, the engine would die on roll out if you did not bring the throttle in a little. I never could remember that, so we had pretty much stop and goes.

That was the check out; one intensive hour. I wonder who owns that airplane now?

IMG_0711.jpg


IMG_0713.jpg
 
Last edited:
JonJay said:
... or it could simply be how people define "handling" Scott. That is a pretty obscure, broad based, word....
Click to expand...

Michael Seager said:
These planes typically have 200hp IO360s and yes they have brute power and climb performance but they tend to run out of elevator way too soon on landing and also tend to be heavy on the controls. I have also flown planes loaded way over gross up to maybe 2000 lbs gross weight. These planes also fly terrible to the point where you must push forward on the stick when landing rather than pull back when you are doing the landing flair. Heavy planes also tend to be over pitch sensitive. So my recommendation to the guy wanting to find a nice flying airplane is find the lightest one you can and it will be a nicer flying plane.
Best Mike
Click to expand...

Handling is very subjective especially for the day VFR straight and level with navigation turns. Most people that have flown several RVs do not do enough "maneuvers" to truly feel the difference. Mike, who probably does, I would consider an expert witness on this topic.

Also remember that CG is a big player in the handling and feel of the controls. Most of the heavy aircraft have the CG further forward so they appear to maintain light controls when they are actually just becoming less stable (see Mike's comment above on overly pitch sensitive). Maybe we should be comparing CGs as well as the weights.
 
Last edited:
plehrke said:
Also remember that CG is a big player in the handling and feel of the controls. Most of the heavy aircraft have the CG further forward so they appear to maintain light controls when they are actually just becoming less stable (see Mike's comment above on overly pitch sensitive). Maybe we should be comparing CGs as well as the weights.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

A previous post implied aircraft empty weight had a lot less effect than the varying weight of the people flying in them.
To some degree this is true, but a heavier weight is a factor on more things than just the airplane lifting a higher weight.
 
Last edited:
66RV interests me greatly, I don't have the numbers on hand but I recall it is one of the relatively few light 6s that also has a fairly forward cg.
Can anybody who knows this aeroplane well comment on why this may be the case?
Thanks.
 
My two checkout flights with Mike in N66VA are great memories for me even though it was awfully hot in Cartersville, GA on July 26-27, 1999. If I recall correctly this is the plane that got chopped up on the runway at S-N-F (or was it OSH).

seager-3.jpg


seager-1.jpg


Two comments I remember from discussions with Mike:

"The RV is easy to fly but difficult to fly precisely"

"When really loaded you have to fly it all the time"

In the years since I have found both statements to be absolutely true.
 
Last edited:
hohocc said:
66RV interests me greatly, I don't have the numbers on hand but I recall it is one of the relatively few light 6s that also has a fairly forward cg.
Can anybody who knows this aeroplane well comment on why this may be the case?
Thanks.
Click to expand...

A metal prop will do that.

I still don't see how they did a 965 lb RV-6 with a metal prop (or was that the weight when it still had a wood prop?).

My airplane weighs 1030 lbs, with a fairly basic VFR panel and a wood prop. I know of about 20 pounds that would be easy to shed (heavy starter, carpet on the floors, extra seat cushions), but after that, there isn't much left to remove or swap for lighter. I do believe my airplane has too much paint and primer (my fault), but I don't see how that would be much over 20 lbs.

Anyway, I do find it interesting that 66RV is/was so light.
 
plehrke said:
Also remember that CG is a big player in the handling and feel of the controls. Most of the heavy aircraft have the CG further forward so they appear to maintain light controls when they are actually just becoming less stable (see Mike's comment above on overly pitch sensitive). Maybe we should be comparing CGs as well as the weights.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure forward cg is actually more stable, not less.
Mike is indeed the utmost authority, that is true.
 
Last edited:
My RV-6 is 1025lbs with O-320D1A, Sensenich prop, Concorde 25XC battery, Classic Aero Sportsman leather seats, light paint and basic VFR panel. No other heavyweight extras.

I could perhaps save 15 pounds on the battery and I do know the narrow deck O-320s are about 20 lbs lighter. How you could go less that 990 with a metal prop and the standard airframe is a mystery to me.
 
Last edited:
Saber25 said:
I'm glad I built my RV4 to Van's plans for a sport airplane by keeping it light with a 320-E2D and a wood FP prop. Having read some of the posts here I might have been discouraged from flying into many of the backcountry strips located in ID,MT,OR or WA. Nor would I have flown this airplane quite easily near gross Wt on a flight over the San Juans at 17500. I'm thinking this light fighter never knew what it was up against when in aerial one on one conquests with the 180hp/CS opponent and won. Of course that's a whole other realm of aviation which is generally not mentioned here and I digress.

It is true however that having the advantage of HP/CS will obscure what the other guy does with finesse:)

Oh, this RV4 has spent its entire 23 years flying Colorado.
Click to expand...

No thanks. I prefer a high wing with no wheel pants for backcountry, although a lightweight 4 will certainly work for some conditions, and a plane more like mine for cross country flight.

And...................a Cessna 172 flown with "finesse", can easily beat an F-16 off the runway..........in takeoff distance...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top