What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Considerations for spinning my -6A

D

DylanRush

Active Member
I know spins have been discussed many times in other threads. I wasn't sure if I should revive an old thread or start a new one so I'm just gonna start a new one.

I own a beautiful flying RV-6A that I did not build. I'm taking some advanced handling lessons with a talented and knowledgeable CFI who has spun a -6 in the past. He is suggesting spin training. He has read up on some of these discussions and come to the conclusion that spin training is acceptable in a -6A while recreational spins, and fully developed spins are discouraged. So we were thinking of just spinning for at most one turn.

He weights 220 lbs and I weigh 165. Even with empty tanks we are not going to be in the aerobatic weight limit. The plane is 1139 lbs empty and the aerobatic category limit is 1375.

My understanding is that the aerobatic category brings max wing load from 3Gs to 6Gs. I am curious if spin training is ever expected to breach 3Gs or otherwise stress the airframe that would otherwise require the aerobatic category.

I'm also curious if the limits should also be considered for gentleman's aerobatics like aileron rolls. Honestly I am fine with just doing aileron rolls in my plane and spin training is a bonus for me.
 
From the Construction Manual:

"As an example, here is what we found when spin testing the prototype RV-6. Remember, this is one individual airplane! Our results and yours may vary significantly.

Testing was performed up to the limit load (1375 lb. aerobatic gross) and C.G. (25% aft of leading edge) with satisfactory recoveries being easily affected.

For prototype RV-6 and RV-6A aircraft, spin characteristics and recovery procedures were found to be as follows:

The prototype RV-6 & RV-6A aircraft exhibited good spin resistance. Forceful pro-spin (full up elevator and full rud- der) control pressures were necessary to induce a fully established spin. Good spin recovery was evident during the first two rotations. Simply releasing the controls during the 1st rotation stopped the spin, and opposite rudder and forward stick caused a quick recovery during the second rotation. After two turns, the rotation rate increased and stabilized between 3 and 4 turns with a high rate of rotation of about 180 degrees/second. Once past approximately 2 spin rotations, the spin had stabilized and if the controls were freed, the RV-6 would continue spinning until anti- rotation control inputs were applied. One reason for this is that in a fully developed spin, the elevators float up and remain their hands-off. Recovery procedure consists of the following:

  • Power to idle.
  • Apply full opposite rudder, (opposite the direction of rotation)
  • Center the ailerons and elevator. (Because of the up elevator float, forward stick pressure is needed to center the elevators.
  • Hold the above control positions until rotation stops, then use the elevator to recover to level flight. 1 1/4 to 1 3/4 rotations are usually required for rotation to stop.

Because of the high rotation rate and the positive (rather than automatic) spin recovery technique required, Van's Aircraft Inc. recommends that pilots of RV-6/6A and RV-7/7A aircraft limit their intentional spins to two turns or less, and that recovery from incipient accidental spins be initiated immediately upon recognition."​

DylanRush said:
I'm also curious if the limits should also be considered for gentleman's aerobatics like aileron rolls. Honestly I am fine with just doing aileron rolls in my plane and spin training is a bonus for me.
Click to expand...

If you are doing aerobatics, being proficient in spin recovery is a must. Therefore spin training is required. Maneuvers get botched, especially by new aerobatic pilots. Also for aerobatics (including spins), abide by the aerobatic Weight and CG limits published by Van's.

DylanRush said:
I am curious if spin training is ever expected to breach 3Gs or otherwise stress the airframe that would otherwise require the aerobatic category.
Click to expand...

Only if you botch the recovery.

DylanRush said:
My understanding is that the aerobatic category brings max wing load from 3Gs to 6Gs.
Click to expand...

The quote below is from this Van's webpage. I believe it applies to the RV-6/-6A also. IOW, at the maximum design gross weight the airplane is stressed for +4.4 G, and not +3.0 G.

https://www.vansaircraft.com/flying-an-rv/

"The RV-3B, RV-4, RV-7/7A, RV-8/8A and RV-14/14A have been designed for the operational stress limits of the aerobatic category (+6.0/-3.0 G) at and below their aerobatic gross weights. The operational stress limits for these aircraft between their aerobatic gross weights and their maximum design gross weights are utility category (+4.4/-1.75 G)."​
 
Last edited:
DylanRush said:
I know spins have been discussed many times in other threads. I wasn't sure if I should revive an old thread or start a new one so I'm just gonna start a new one.

I own a beautiful flying RV-6A that I did not build. I'm taking some advanced handling lessons with a talented and knowledgeable CFI who has spun a -6 in the past. He is suggesting spin training. He has read up on some of these discussions and come to the conclusion that spin training is acceptable in a -6A while recreational spins, and fully developed spins are discouraged. So we were thinking of just spinning for at most one turn.

He weights 220 lbs and I weigh 165. Even with empty tanks we are not going to be in the aerobatic weight limit. The plane is 1139 lbs empty and the aerobatic category limit is 1375.

My understanding is that the aerobatic category brings max wing load from 3Gs to 6Gs. I am curious if spin training is ever expected to breach 3Gs or otherwise stress the airframe that would otherwise require the aerobatic category.

I'm also curious if the limits should also be considered for gentleman's aerobatics like aileron rolls. Honestly I am fine with just doing aileron rolls in my plane and spin training is a bonus for me.
Click to expand...

Not sure where to start here……. Conducting aerobatics, especially spin training, at a weight that far exceeds the designed aerobatic gross weight limit seems like it could lead to one of those ‘non-habit forming experiences’. Not exceeding the utility category G limit (4.4 G’s) is not the only consideration. Controllability comes into play too. When you add the extra weight of the FAA REQUIRED parachutes, you go even deeper into the untested airframe and flight control limitations area. Being an experimental doesn’t relieve you of the requirement to wear parachutes. At your empty weight, plus you two guys, plus 15 lbs for two light weight butt chutes, leaves you 164 lbs above gross with no fuel. 15 gallons of fuel, which I would consider minimum for that kind of sortie, leaves you at 250+ lbs above your limit. The smallish tail on the RV6 with its possibly/likely thin skinned tail feathers (.016) were designed with an understanding of these gross weight limitations for recovery maneuvering. G loading during spin recovery can ramp up to more than what you think, especially in a RV6/7. You are treading on unproven, untested ground. Please be careful.

Your knowledgeable CFI who is recommending spin training at an above designed gross weight because he has read up on it and come to the conclusion that spin trading is acceptable really surprises me. Maybe you should get a second opinion from another CFI.
 
Last edited:
Yeah honestly this was feeling outside of my comfort zone and these replies have dissuaded me from spin training in my plane. I’m going to try to find another aircraft for spin training.

Curious though if there’s anyone who has actually spun a -6 or -6A with two people in it, maybe somehow staying light or admitting to breaching the weight limit. Maybe my particular RV-6A has a heavy empty weight?

Also, I am under the impression that parachutes are not required for spin training - even though it’s not a bad idea to wear them.
 
DylanRush said:
Also, I am under the impression that parachutes are not required for spin training - even though it’s not a bad idea to wear them.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Parachutes are not required when an instructor is giving instruction on any maneuver required for any rating. [91.307(d)]

Operating over recommended weight limits is, of course, never a great idea.
 
Last edited:
BobTurner said:
You are correct. Parachutes are not required when an instructor is giving instruction on any maneuver required for any rating. [91.307(d)]

I must have known about that rule at one time, probably about 50 years ago, but obviously forgot it, but it makes sense. Spin entry and recovery is, or used to be, a requirement in training for a flight instructor certificate.

I’ve spun my first RV6 about 20 years ago during phase 1. The maximum turns I did was two, and it seemed like it took almost two turns to recover. A one turn spin worked out much better. The RV6 wraps up pretty tightly and not sitting on the centerline of the airplane probably makes it seem worse. I didn’t certify spins during phase 1 on my new RV6.
Click to expand...
 
As a CFI I do required spin training in all sorts of non-aerobatic aircraft. Many C-172s and 152s are approved for spins. Being in the experimental category makes you AND the manufacturer liable for any flight conditions. Vans has made their statement and recommendation. If you operate outside of that envelope then you are a test pilot.
Some are comfortable being that test pilot, some are not.
 
Spins are 1G manuvers. The Pull-out is where G's can be incured. If you are not agressive, there is no risk here. Spins can be safely taught is non aerobatic aircraft.
 
pa38112 said:
Spins are 1G manuvers. The Pull-out is where G's can be incured. If you are not agressive, there is no risk here. Spins can be safely taught is non aerobatic aircraft.
Click to expand...

Choice of words? I have had to assist ‘students’ in 152’s when they were not aggressive enough, e.g., pulling out from the dive so slowly that airspeed was approaching red line.
 
BobTurner said:
You are correct. Parachutes are not required when an instructor is giving instruction on any maneuver required for any rating. [91.307(d)]
Click to expand...

And just to be crystal clear - a CFI suggesting that he give you spin training doesn’t exempt you from the parachute requirement because I can’t think of any normal pilot certificates (not talking instructor certificates) that require spins for the “rating”. So unless spin training is REQUIRED for a rating, you have to wear chutes if you’re out spinning…..

(And BTW - I am all for spin training, or at least spin exposure, for all pilots….)

Paul
 
Scott Hersha said:
BobTurner said:
You are correct. Parachutes are not required when an instructor is giving instruction on any maneuver required for any rating. [91.307(d)]

I must have known about that rule at one time, probably about 50 years ago, but obviously forgot it, but it makes sense. Spin entry and recovery is, or used to be, a requirement in training for a flight instructor certificate.

I’ve spun my first RV6 about 20 years ago during phase 1. The maximum turns I did was two, and it seemed like it took almost two turns to recover. A one turn spin worked out much better. The RV6 wraps up pretty tightly and not sitting on the centerline of the airplane probably makes it seem worse. I didn’t certify spins during phase 1 on my new RV6.
Click to expand...

Similar to Scott's experience and I think Van's notes, I can say that after about a turn and a half, definitely at two, the RV6's "spin demeanor" changes from seems docile to an "OH! You are serious about this! Let's GO!!". The rate picks up and as Scott mentions, I think at least two turns were required for recovery. This was in a tailwheel 6 that was "light", especially on the nose.

As someone who has "been there" in a 6, I can tell you that I don't plan to go back. **IF** you decide to do it, PLEASE make sure that you have plenty of altitude and the patience required with proper control input to recover.

Just one spun RV6 owner's OPINION.
Click to expand...
 
Spinning Lola

Same as jclark, I’ve spun our taildragger RV-6. In my case, many times. After reading Van’s notes I did some spins up to about 1 1/2 turns. Almost always solo, a time or two with my small CFI wife. We were light on fuel, within akro CG but of course about 90 - 100 lb over akro weight with the two of us. I like to do light aerobatics in the airplane and limit spins to one turn. I’ve never been past 1 1/2 turns. I have occasionally seen the rotation speed up at about the 3/4 turn mark but nothing alarming. Seems just a little harder to start a spin to the right, for some reason.
 
I spun mine on phase 1. With a well forward cg’ you have to force it into the spin. Unlike other aircraft I have spun, it isn’t fun. It wraps up quickly, recovery is less than spontaneous, and the altitude loss was shocking. No fun.
The Bucker has nice spin characteristics, responds to control inputs
immediately, and you and choose your exit point down to the degree. My Champ was similar but much slower, kind of like a leaf gently falling, super fun. Not the 6.
 
Ironflight said:
And just to be crystal clear - a CFI suggesting that he give you spin training doesn’t exempt you from the parachute requirement because I can’t think of any normal pilot certificates (not talking instructor certificates) that require spins for the “rating”. So unless spin training is REQUIRED for a rating, you have to wear chutes if you’re out spinning…..

(And BTW - I am all for spin training, or at least spin exposure, for all pilots….)

Paul
Click to expand...

Paul, I usually agree with you but not this time. The FAA has been clear about the interpretation of 91.307(d), e.g., ‘any maneuver required for any rating’. And yes, it’s the cfi certificate that requires spin training. But legally there is no such thing as an ‘instructor-student’, nor is there any prohibition on pilots receiving instruction at any time on any particular maneuver for any particular rating, for their own particular reasons.
 
Great info thus far.
I agree with those who feel that spinning an RV is less about the capabilities and limitations of the aircraft and more about the capabilities and limitations of the pilot. RV's spin just fine.
Most of my CFI activities are Flight Reviews and new aircraft checkouts in RV's. I include deep stalls, secondary stalls, G awareness, accelerated stalls, and incipient spins in that instruction.
The RV has such a broad envelope that when typical RV pilots find themselves inadvertently outside of it they are likely quite far from anything they have ever experienced or are prepared for.
As for actually spinning: I have spun the -4, -6, and-7a. The latter with the original small rudder. As has already been excellently described, the spin characteristics are quite eye opening. So much so, that most pilots would find it far outside their comfort zone. I don't feel there is anything to be gained by "teaching" spins in an RV. Most RV pilots would benefit more from learning to avoid developed spins than by actually spinning their plane.
Just my humble 2 cents.
 
Was your -6A built with the original fin and rudder or does it use the larger fin/rudder of the -7? There are a number of -6As out there with the larger fin/rudder, one of which I did the Phase I acro/spin testing on. With the larger fin/rudder it spins very normally in the fully-developed phase, and recovers within 1/4 turn, which is quite different from the supposed spin qualities of the 6/-6A with the original fin/rudder, which I've never spun.

That being said, try to find an instructor with a Decathlon for spin training.
 
luddite42 said:
Was your -6A built with the original fin and rudder or does it use the larger fin/rudder of the -7? There are a number of -6As out there with the larger fin/rudder, one of which I did the Phase I acro/spin testing on. With the larger fin/rudder it spins very normally in the fully-developed phase, and recovers within 1/4 turn, which is quite different from the supposed spin qualities of the 6/-6A with the original fin/rudder, which I've never spun.

That being said, try to find an instructor with a Decathlon for spin training.
Click to expand...

I have the original rudder
 
luddite42 said:
Was your -6A built with the original fin and rudder or does it use the larger fin/rudder of the -7? There are a number of -6As out there with the larger fin/rudder, one of which I did the Phase I acro/spin testing on. With the larger fin/rudder it spins very normally in the fully-developed phase, and recovers within 1/4 turn, which is quite different from the supposed spin qualities of the 6/-6A with the original fin/rudder, which I've never spun.

That being said, try to find an instructor with a Decathlon for spin training.
Click to expand...

I vaguely remember reading something from Van's stating that this was the primary reason for going to the 8 rudder on the later 6's. Also think I remember them saying that it met that objective.
 
Appears many peeps here are a bit overly cautious about spins in the RV. Not advocating everyone go out and do spins willy nilly but nothing wrong with spins if you get a CFI and get her in weight. Many posts on the forum are giving spins some kind of god status.

The Van's account mentioned in the manual is spot on. The -7A had to be forced into a spin with a rather long incipient/developing stage, at that point simply letting go would recover albeit in a straight vertical dive. If allowed past a couple turns hold on to your hats because it will spin rather fast. I didn't find the spin rate unreasonable though or "scary". Van's is correct in that you will feel the elevator control force back into your hand as some force causes the elevators to float up. Recovery with the standard PARE method worked perfect on my plane and it recovered very quickly. I honestly think Van's said don't spin because it won't recover by itself and will stay in it. I don't think it had anything to do with the rotation rate. The one thing I will say though is the aircraft clearly doesn't "like" to spin as you can hear some seriously ugly airflow the whole time. As far as G forces on recovery I saw 2.8 peak.
 
jcarne said:
Appears many peeps here are a bit overly cautious about spins in the RV. Not advocating everyone go out and do spins willy nilly but nothing wrong with spins if you get a CFI and get her in weight. Many posts on the forum are giving spins some kind of god status.

The Van's account mentioned in the manual is spot on. The -7A had to be forced into a spin with a rather long incipient/developing stage, at that point simply letting go would recover albeit in a straight vertical dive. If allowed past a couple turns hold on to your hats because it will spin rather fast. I didn't find the spin rate unreasonable though or "scary". Van's is correct in that you will feel the elevator control force back into your hand as some force causes the elevators to float up. Recovery with the standard PARE method worked perfect on my plane and it recovered very quickly. I honestly think Van's said don't spin because it won't recover by itself and will stay in it. I don't think it had anything to do with the rotation rate. The one thing I will say though is the aircraft clearly doesn't "like" to spin as you can hear some seriously ugly airflow the whole time. As far as G forces on recovery I saw 2.8 peak.
Click to expand...


All good stuff - but you do realize that there is a significant difference in tails between the -6 and the -7, and this thread is asking about a -6……
 
lr172 said:
I vaguely remember reading something from Van's stating that this was the primary reason for going to the 8 rudder on the later 6's. Also think I remember them saying that it met that objective.
Click to expand...

That is not correct.
The change was made for parts commonality, and as a way to incorporate a partially pre-punched empenage into the RV-6 kit.
 
jcarne said:
Appears many peeps here are a bit overly cautious about spins in the RV. Not advocating everyone go out and do spins willy nilly but nothing wrong with spins if you get a CFI and get her in weight. Many posts on the forum are giving spins some kind of god status.

The Van's account mentioned in the manual is spot on. The -7A had to be forced into a spin with a rather long incipient/developing stage, at that point simply letting go would recover albeit in a straight vertical dive. If allowed past a couple turns hold on to your hats because it will spin rather fast. I didn't find the spin rate unreasonable though or "scary". Van's is correct in that you will feel the elevator control force back into your hand as some force causes the elevators to float up. Recovery with the standard PARE method worked perfect on my plane and it recovered very quickly. I honestly think Van's said don't spin because it won't recover by itself and will stay in it. I don't think it had anything to do with the rotation rate. The one thing I will say though is the aircraft clearly doesn't "like" to spin as you can hear some seriously ugly airflow the whole time. As far as G forces on recovery I saw 2.8 peak.
Click to expand...

Actually, there has been numerous things published where rotation rate was specifically stated as a concern and reason for recommending against recreational spinning of a RV-6 because it would likely surprise, and potentially panic, uninitiated RV pilots.
During flight testing of the prototype, Van himself decided to have Bob Herendine investigate the advanced spin behavior because of how much he could tell the rotation rate was increasing as the initial spin developed.
 
Saber25 said:
I made this video some years ago on a beautiful Colorado winter day. It clearly shows the benign spin characteristics of the RV-4. If you want to get into spins right away go to 3 minutes on the video.

Cheers, Hans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x5k9Qx99Gs
Click to expand...

Adding to what Paul already mentioned… when it comes to spins, RV’s are not all the same.
There is a big difference in spin characteristics between an RV-4 and an RV-6.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
That is not correct.
The change was made for parts commonality, and as a way to incorporate a partially pre-punched empenage into the RV-6 kit.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I must have mixed it up with the 7 and why they changed the rudder. I remember reading that they didn't like the spin characteristics and changed the rudder to improve it (SB 02-6-1). LT memory apparently not what it used to be.
 
Last edited:
"There is a big difference in spin characteristics between an RV-4 and an RV-6."

Which is why I love this airplane!
 
Saber25 said:
"There is a big difference in spin characteristics between an RV-4 and an RV-6."

Which is why I love this airplane!
Click to expand...

I agree. The RV four is great, but posting a video of an RV-4 in a thread that is discussing the spin characteristics of the RV six could make some come to believe that what they see in the video is what they would see in an RV six.
That is not the case.
Because the 4 and the 6 are dimensionally quite similar, the one thought that has been discussed in the past is the fatness/width of the tail cone on the 6 must have a different influence on the flow onto the vertical tail and rudder during spin rotation when compared to the skinny tail cone of the 4.
The 7 has a very slightly longer fuselage, but it also has a longer wingspan than the 6. It’s spin characteristics are even slightly more different than on the six. This is a good lesson and that very minor differences can have an MIt’s spin characteristics or even slightly more different than on the six. This is a good lesson, and that very minor differences can have an influence on flight characteristics.
 
Spins

Never spun an RV but thousands of spins in a variety of other aircraft from J3 to most of the high performance aerobatic airplanes.
In my opinion the main issue is the canopy. The RV4 has a narrow and fairly low canopy. The wider RV6 canopy disrupts the airflow around the tail to a greater degree than the RV4. The slightly taller rudder on some RV6's is partially above the turbulent flow.
A reminder that for early spin training the recovery rudder should be applied before forward stick. Forward stick with full rudder will dramatically increase the rotation.
 
Ironflight said:
All good stuff - but you do realize that there is a significant difference in tails between the -6 and the -7, and this thread is asking about a -6……
Click to expand...

True, and good point Paul, but Van's blanket statement in post two lumps the -6 and -7 together to some degree. Not saying they spin the same, just saying the general fear of spinning on the forums is apparent and somewhat needlessly. Just needs to be respected and it can be a great learning experience.

Van's Aircraft Inc. recommends that pilots of RV-6/6A and RV-7/7A aircraft limit their intentional spins to two turns or less, and that recovery from incipient accidental spins be initiated immediately upon recognition.

rvbuilder2002 said:
Actually, there has been numerous things published where rotation rate was specifically stated as a concern and reason for recommending against recreational spinning of a RV-6 because it would likely surprise, and potentially panic, uninitiated RV pilots.
During flight testing of the prototype, Van himself decided to have Bob Herendine investigate the advanced spin behavior because of how much he could tell the rotation rate was increasing as the initial spin developed.
Click to expand...

Yep no doubt Scott, that rotation rate could panic someone which is why I recommended someone go up with their CFI first. If a CFI panics, well... maybe they shouldn't be one. haha

All great points you made and I'm glad you posted as you likely know more than most of us here on the topic.
 
jrs14855 said:
Never spun an RV but thousands of spins in a variety of other aircraft from J3 to most of the high performance aerobatic airplanes.
In my opinion the main issue is the canopy. The RV4 has a narrow and fairly low canopy. The wider RV6 canopy disrupts the airflow around the tail to a greater degree than the RV4. The slightly taller rudder on some RV6's is partially above the turbulent flow.
A reminder that for early spin training the recovery rudder should be applied before forward stick. Forward stick with full rudder will dramatically increase the rotation.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear for everyone reading forward stick means positioning the stick to the neutral position. It does not mean positioning the stick forward of that position. The term forward stick is used because the stick will float to a aft position if released in a spin. I dislike the way it’s written in some of Vans documents because it could lead to confusion. The first step in any departure should be to neutralize the controls so the stick should be in the correct position at that point.
Note that keeping the elevator neutral is different than many aircraft types that require the stick to be moved forward of neutral in a spin recovery.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top