What's new
Van's Air Force

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

1800 RV6A?

circuitbreaker8747

Active Member
We are looking at buying a 6A. We come across quite a few that have a gross weight listed of 1800 pounds. We have read a lot of topics discussing this. However most discussions seem to focus on CG and performance and handing. We have seen almost no topic on the stress and wear and tear of ground ops and take off and landing have on landing gear and other components. A big topic/concern on "A" models is the nose gear. If that is such a concern why fly your plane 150 pounds overweight? It may fly fine but we wonder about years of landing over design weight and what it does to the landing gear and other components. We are on the fence about purchasing any 6A that lists gross weight at 1800 pounds. Even tho we would not go above 1650 what has 10 years of flying at 1800 done to airframe? Just curious of other peoples thoughts and experiences. Thank you.
 
Hmmm. Well, I'm thinking that anyone who would actually load the aircraft to the full "adjusted" 1800lb weight would do so for a long cross country. (Who would stuff the aircraft full to do touch and go's?) I would think that the aircraft would be well under 1800lbs after a few hours of flight. So I don't think it would be much of an issue.

As for nose wheel issues: I suppose it would depend on whether the extra weight was in the passenger seat or in the baggage compartment. I would assume, if in the baggage compartment, the additional load would be on the main gear rather than the nose gear provided that the nose was lowered while there is still sufficient elevator authority to control its contact with the runway. If the extra weight is in the passenger seat...well, I dunno.... (Might the passenger be too heavy to fly in an RV?)

I would think the bigger issue would be excessive weight in the baggage compartment and center of gravity after burning a great deal of fuel. The aircraft would tend to become tail heavy with max baggage and little fuel but that potential weight and cg can be calculated/extrapolated prior to flight.

In the end, just because the aircraft has an 1800lb max gross weight does not mean you have to fly it at the weight. If it has not been previously damaged with that gross weight, I would think it's fine.

Good luck
 
180hp

Most that I have seen with higher gross weight have had 180 hp vs 160hp and I believe that to be the reason for listing higher gross weight. Also as Fred said... YMMV
 
We are looking at buying a 6A. We come across quite a few that have a gross weight listed of 1800 pounds. We have read a lot of topics discussing this. However most discussions seem to focus on CG and performance and handing. We have seen almost no topic on the stress and wear and tear of ground ops and take off and landing have on landing gear and other components. A big topic/concern on "A" models is the nose gear. If that is such a concern why fly your plane 150 pounds overweight? It may fly fine but we wonder about years of landing over design weight and what it does to the landing gear and other components. We are on the fence about purchasing any 6A that lists gross weight at 1800 pounds. Even tho we would not go above 1650 what has 10 years of flying at 1800 done to airframe? Just curious of other peoples thoughts and experiences. Thank you.

Pretty sure the gear on the 7 is the same alloy and diameter as the gear for the 6, just a bit longer. The 7 is rated at 1800, so I doubt there is an issue with the gear. Pretty sure the gear mounts are the same, as is the engine mount/nose gear assembly, at least in structural integrity.

I rated my 6A at 1800, but don't often fly it at that weight and rarely ever land at that weight.

I can't imagine there is any long term stresses from flying at that weight. The spar on the 6 is very robust. I would be way more concerned with how the pilot treated the nose wheel during TO, landing and ground ops than I would be from an 1800# GW. I would be more focused on known problems areas and the activity or lack thereof, that leads to them. No real issues with the 6 falling apart from stresses, though there are known areas where specific stress related issues can arise.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Mine is listed at 1800 and I have probably only ever flown it over 1650 a couple of times. Vans will tell you that the nose gear is not a landing gear, rather a steering gear.

If you watch flight chops? video series that he did at vans, you will notice that mike Seager recommended getting the nose when off and wheelie-ing down the runway in the takeoff attitude until the plane lifts off. Same deal with landing. Land on the mains and slowly bring the stick full back until you can?t hold it off anymore. These practices keep the nose gear very protected and I would be more concerned with the previous owner?s landing ability rather than what his plane?s weight is listed at.
 
I have 'reverse-engineered' the spar on the RV-6 and I can tell you that at 1800 lbs you are vulnerable to gust loads exceeding limit load.

As a pilot, you can limit your maneuver loads, but you can't control gust loads, except by reducing speed. If you reduce the yellow line (V_b or V_c as the case may be) by an appropriate amount : (V_b-new)^2 = 1650/1800*(V_b-old)^2, AND YOU OBEY IT, then you have the same gust strength margins that the designer used when he designed the spar.
 
1800

We just took ownership of the RV6A. We had to re-install the wings and made minor nose gear mods etc. Can we re-enter Phase I flight testing and then designate it as 1800? Or, is this ONLY something the builder can do?

I appreciate your feedback.
 
We bought our 6A knowing that the gross weight was listed at 1750lbs but have
never had that much in it. We normally fly ours fully loaded for cross country
at 1600lbs and for local flyins much much less.. The weight is set by the
builder but as one of our locals likes to say, "it's experimental, you can do what
you like".
 
1100 - empty weight +
228 - 38 gal fuel +
272 - 2 humans (136 lb average) +
0 - baggage =
1600 - gross weight

Cheers, David
RV-6A KBTF
 
1100 - empty weight +
228 - 38 gal fuel +
272 - 2 humans (136 lb average) +
0 - baggage =
1600 - gross weight
Cheers, David
RV-6A KBTF

Don't know about Utah, but you won't find many 136 lb. average humans in Texas.
 
More typical texas loading.

1105 lbs empty
500 lbs pax (2-250lb bubbas)
144 lbsfuel (24 gals)

1749 lbs takeoff weight.
I trade gas for pax weight and with my cg, can carry pax or bags, but not both.
Rarely fly it there, but it will still climb 1200ft/min and cruise 170ktas on my special built 320.
 
Don't know about Utah, but you won't find many 136 lb. average humans in Texas.

Not in Utah either. So I won't be flying "fully loaded for cross country at 1600 lbs". I'm glad my builder set a higher gross weight that I can use with discretion. I'm at the aerobatic weight limit solo with no fuel (my empty weight is above 1100 lbs).

Cheers, David
RV-6A KBTF
 
Van’s fly better lighter. Van’s fly better lighter. Now write it down, go to a mirror, and say “Van’s fly better lighter.” Say it over and over again.
Ha!!!

I had a doggie that liked fly but he was too **** fat. Had to put him on a diet or no flying for him. Worked out okay saved the money from less dog food and bought a better tach for the plane.

Had a gal that was too um cough heavyset. Considered suggesting diet modification. That didn’t go over well and well I ended up sleeping in the hangar.

Now get back to the mirror and repeat “Van’s fly better lighter.”
 
Last edited:
1850

We bought our RV6A with a 1850 lb. gross weight. Empty is 1087. Nose wheel weight was 258 when it was weighed. We don't fly it at gross most of the time, but on a trip to Alaska with survival gear and a long way between fuel stops it was nice to be able to load it up. It does fly different and we had to put bags on the floor next to the seats to be in cg. The airplane is very light on the nose with a 0-360 and a constant speed prop. I can keep the nose off the runway untill very slow and had to do that on some grass/gravel strips. Climb is best at 130 kts. when heavy. I know that turbulence can be an issue and slowing down is best to keep g loading low. We don't cruise in the yellow ever, its always to rough in the southwest and mountains areas where we fly most of the time. I have climbed to 12,500 at gross weight less fuel burn and the last 1000 ft. was at 300 FPM, at -8 degrees C.
 
All kidding aside my 6A is rated at 1850 although I usually fly light but do fly loaded to the gills from time to time and other than the speed profile changing it’s not a problem.

Also I thought Va was calculated at max weight and that it decreased with LESS loading. If that’s the case isn’t it safer to fly in gusty conditions at a higher load factor?

Understandably if you slow down it’s yet safer but from a spar perspective isn’t heavier better in gusty conditions? I am not an engineer so it’s a question not a rhetorical musing.

As far as landing I am pretty sure technique is the key to a long healthy life of the landing gear. She’s got spindly little legs.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Also I thought Va was calculated at max weight and that it decreased with LESS loading. If that?s the case isn?t it safer to fly in gusty conditions at a higher load factor?

Manuvering speed (Va) is nothing but a stall speed. It's just a stall speed at a load factor other than 1.0 - in this case, it's the stall speed for the design load factor of 4.4 at max gross of 1600 (RV-6) or 1650 (RV-6A). Presumably there is a lower load factor for increased gross weight, and if so Va should be calculated for that speed.

It's not the only speed that needs to be adjusted by the builder when choosing a different gross weight, BTW. Vc ("the yellow band") also needs to be adjusted to account for the weight change as well.
 
1650 vs 1800

My naive question is: As the 2nd owner of the RV6A, can we adjust the builders gross weight of 1650lbs up to 1800 lbs? One response above was, "Phase 1 Flight test". Is that sound accurate to the rest of you?
 
My naive question is: As the 2nd owner of the RV6A, can we adjust the builders gross weight of 1650lbs up to 1800 lbs? One response above was, "Phase 1 Flight test". Is that sound accurate to the rest of you?

If we agree that a gross weight change is a major modification, your operating limitations will dictate how to proceed. Most likely, yes, you will need to enter Phase I for some period of time; Generally five hours.

Keep in mind, Vans does make the gross weight of the airplane as high as possible, given their engineering data (or regulations, if we are talking about a LSA). Therefore, I view a gross weight change as more than just paperwork and flying the airplane around in Phase I again.. there would be some engineering involved.
 
Vans does make the gross weight of the airplane as high as possible, given their engineering data

Yes, but at the times the -6 was designed, Vans was basically a one man show and the -3/-4/-6 were calculated with larger margins than the -7 and following models are.
Considering the number of sixes flying (and those still getting finalized), Vans could consider reverse engineering the aircraft and hopefully get a higher MTOM...
 
Yes, but at the times the -6 was designed, Vans was basically a one man show and the -3/-4/-6 were calculated with larger margins than the -7 and following models are.

This is not true.
The same engineering was used for each.

If you have some specific info or documentation you can point to that indicates otherwise, I would appreciate knowing wher to look for it.
 
Directly from vans. The -6 wing is the strongest of the bunch and failed well over 9 G’s during testing. The rumor i have heard from reliable folks it was approximately 11 G’s. Another 100lbs of gross weight is not going to cause a failure.

The -8 wing failed at 9 G’s.

I raised my gross weight to 1750lbs. Called the local fsdo and they said to enter phase 1, test at that weight and make a logbook entry.

86650-DAD-AAF1-4-E63-AC7-A-F6-E84-DCD4696.png
 
Last edited:
Directly from vans. The -6 wing is the strongest of the bunch and failed well over 9 G’s during testing. The rumor i have heard from reliable folks it was approximately 11 G’s. Another 100lbs of gross weight is not going to cause a failure.

The -8 wing failed at 9 G’s.

I raised my gross weight to 1750lbs. Called the local fsdo and they said to enter phase 1, test at that weight and make a logbook entry.

86650-DAD-AAF1-4-E63-AC7-A-F6-E84-DCD4696.png
The wing is not the only structural element of the airplane that is effected by all up load.
If the statement you quoted was meant to imply that because of the overall wing strength the RV-6 gross weight could be increased, the official published gross weight would have been updated long ago.

Additionally, if you re read the document you attached, you might notice that the RV-8 wing did not fail at 9 G's


BTW I was present for the RV-6 (and the RV-8) wing tests..... I don't agree with the rumors.
 
Last edited:
Exceeding Vans design max gross weight

I am amazed at the number of people who appear to question the engineers that have much more data. Lots of rationalizing why they can and antidotes of good performance at higher weight. Is there a cliff, no. Is there higher risk, absolutely. As an aeronautical structural design engineer, I know all the unknowns that go into aircraft strength analysis. The safety factors and margins are there for a reason.
Just one thing to ponder, to exceed Vans published designed to gross weights maximums you most likely need to be carrying a passenger. You may be willing to take the risk. Are they?
 
Last edited:
The wing is not the only structural element of the airplane that is effected by all up load.
If the statement you quoted was meant to imply that because of the overall wing strength the RV-6 gross weight could be increased, the official published gross weight would have been updated long ago.

Additionally, if you re read the document you attached, you might notice that the RV-8 wing did not fail at 9 G's


BTW I was present for the RV-6 (and the RV-8) wing tests..... I don't agree with the rumors.

The -6 wing failed at well above -9g and the -8 wing failed at 9g according to the released document until it was redesigned.

Vans upped the gross weight by 50lbs when they installed the nose wheel. Do you think they were concerned about the all up gross weight increase effects on anything else? I doubt they did a complete structural analysis for a 50lb increase. History has proven the -a model gear is weaker than the tailwheel airplanes, yet they get the gross weight increase.

The wing area is less on the -6, 110 sqft and at 1750lbs, the wing loading is 15.9lbs/ft. The -7 is 14.8 and the -8 is 15.5. The wing loading is virtually identical until you over gross the -6 and then it falls in line with other vans designs using the exact same airfoil and design techniques.

Vans designed the -7 as a -6 replacement, per their website, why would they go to any trouble to better the capabilities of the -6 and take sales away from the new models.

To my understanding, the -6 and -7 share the same gear legs, same engine mount design, same longeron design, same skin thickness and virtually every part is the same materials and design but optimized for the newer construction techniques. My airplane has .020” tail feathers.

The -6 was designed from the start to be a 150-160hp, 0320, fixed pitch, lightweight airplane and the -7 was designed to be a 180-200hp, 0360, constant speed prop airplane. The power loading, wing loading and performance charts suggest the gross weight was limited to give the desired performance as the limiting factor with the smaller engines and was never revisited after the -7 was introduced. Why would they?

Scott, i know you were there the day the test were conducted. The literature has your name on it. I respectfully ask from someone who was in the room, that flies an rv6 and has more vans knowledge than any of us could hope for, where is the weak link for a 100lb gross weight increase? Thousands of rv6 doing two up aerobatics and exceeding vne with engines that vans could never have dreamed of has proven the airframe as strong as any of the others in all respects.

Help us understand the dangers and stop repeating the same line over and over. Thousands of flying airplanes have proved this line of thinking wrong. Show us were the -6 is deficient and i was yell in from the mountain tops. My -6 has a 320 putting out 180+hp and constant speed prop. It flies, at 1750lbs, very similar to an -7 or -8 at the same weight except with a slightly higher sink rate power off.

The one caution i will make, DO NOT under any circumstances exceed the published aft cg limit of a vans airplane. This is one area, from testing, that i have found should have probably been a little more conservative. The airplane becomes very difficult as you pass the aft cg limit. Just because you can haul it with your new higher gross weight, does not make it safe if you can not keep the cg within range.

I am ready to learn.
 
Last edited:
titanhawk +1 :)

Scott, no disrespect here...
specific info or documentation you can point to that indicates otherwise
... and no hard facts, but a couple of comments:
Flew a demo flight outta Fond-du-Lac with Dick (Van's) himself in 1987 or 88 in Old Blue. Next year with the -4 proto outta KOSH. Then went to visit Old Plains barn en route to AK in May 96, still of last century. Also avidly read all the RVator (good all times, before face to book bs times), and what I saw was slipstick calculations done for the early RVs. Later in history Van hired additional engineers in, CAD and pre-punching came along and got the ball of to easy build and increased business rolling. And computerised calculations as well.
 
Threads like this never go anywhere good, regardless of what I say so I?m choosing to say very little.

The info that should be considered would require much more than a few lines of text in a forum post.

Rather than it turning in to a long running debate, I re-raise the question that I already posted.

If everyone is right, and the RV-6(A) is rated extremely conservative regarding gross weight, why do you think Van?s hasn?t raised the official published gross weight after doing the tests that have been quoted?
This is a question anyone considering a higher gross weight should ask them self.

I actually know why.
All of the info regarding wing testing and the ultimate strength was published by someone working in a marketing / publicist capacity, with the purpose of it being to promote positive aspects of the RV-6.
All of the official performance #?s and specifications are owned and controlled by the engineering dept. It is there, that the decision to raise the gross weight after doing the wing test would have had to happen.
Obviously the decision was not to do so.

Something that people should keep in mind....
 
titanhawk +1 :)

Scott, no disrespect here...

... and no hard facts, but a couple of comments:
Flew a demo flight outta Fond-du-Lac with Dick (Van's) himself in 1987 or 88 in Old Blue. Next year with the -4 proto outta KOSH. Then went to visit Old Plains barn en route to AK in May 96, still of last century. Also avidly read all the RVator (good all times, before face to book bs times), and what I saw was slipstick calculations done for the early RVs. Later in history Van hired additional engineers in, CAD and pre-punching came along and got the ball of to easy build and increased business rolling. And computerised calculations as well.

I have been active in the RV coummunity for a long time and I don?t remember every seeing much in regards to detailed engineering data for the RV-6 ever distributed publically, so I am not sure what you could base that opinion on.
 
I understand scott and totally agree. This is last time i will comment on this thread. I still personally believe the question of a higher gross weight for the -6 was never revisited because it would have cost sales for the newer models. I respect that decision and would have probably made the same call. The age old line of “it is dangerous” has been dispelled by the majority of owners who have taken the calculated risk on their own. Vans knows full well that the -6 is being operates at 1700-1800 lb gross weights, flown two up aerobatics and flown well past Vne. A quick search of youtube can show many examples. If they really thought it was a matter of impending doom, they would have issued a SB by now detailing said concerns with details similar to the -3 wing spar problems. Regardless of the model or circumstances, they can’t afford the bad PR of Vans branded aircraft falling apart in flight.

I respectfully ask, either provide the information that shows the -6 has a weak area that you claim to have, use your inside contacts to convince Vans to issue a SB addressing the weak area or stop criticizing others for making a choice about their aircraft that has proven so successful.

Still ready to learn if anyone is willing to teach.
 
Last edited:
I still personally believe the question of a higher gross weight for the -6 was never revisited because it would have cost sales for the newer models.
Nonsense. That's easily solved by ending sales of the RV-6, which they have done.

The age old line of “it is dangerous” has been dispelled by the majority of owners who have taken the calculated risk on their own.
I would argue that you're only seeing what you want to see and are putting your blinders on to anything else.

Vans knows full well that the -6 is being operates at 1700-1800 lb gross weights,
... A majority of which are done in cruise flight only, probably down around 2g max loading if my cross-country flights are any indicator.

...flown two up aerobatics...
... A majority of which would have been done well under 4G, and likely none of them at 6G.

...and flown well past Vne.
... And yet, a well-known -7A accident in Canada occurred while flying an RV-7A at less than (book) gross weight but over Vne. Yes, that was also due to an unbalanced control surface fluttering, but if it was flown within the limits, maybe it would have been fine?

Regardless of the model or circumstances, they can’t afford the bad PR of Vans branded aircraft falling apart in flight.
Which is why they don't advertise that you can fly it beyond it's design limits.

Take Scott's words to heart: The spar isn't the only structural part of the aircraft that's affected by gross weight.
 
Last edited:
My opinion. Higher gross good. Fly lean and light. If loaded honor the recalculated speed profile, don’t pull unnecessary g’s, and treat the landing thingy’s with respect.
 
Ok, this is also my last posting on this thread...
Long story short, we, a couple of local builders had some snail mail (yes, that long ago, amid litigation golden times...) exchange with Van's (no Mothership yet) regarding the calculation made for the -4... no more on this.

Back to the subject, it is interesting to look at the major differences between the -6 and -7:
- wingspan (length albeit small)
- fuel capacity
- VNE
- MTOM

How come?
As stated above strenght calculations can be done with more or less precision, the means at disposal nowadays being far superior to the ones back when the -6 was designed. Using the pre-punched technique also gives a better handle on the build quality, therefore the building error factor may be lowered somewhat.

Still, a willfull MTOM increase without a complete engineering analysis sure is no good idea.
 
So I?d ask what?s worse a load of 1800 lbs and a pilot that holds the nose wheel off properly (wheel in air asap and off as long as possible) or some knucklehead at 1650 rolling on the whee all the time with it flopping around like a shopping cart wheel alll the time .or worse yet smacking the nose wheel on landing.


The weight load exerted by the weight itself is minimal in comparison to what it sees when smacking it down improperly.
 
When I owned my six it was set by the builder at 1800lbs. I was fine with it because the six probably has more actual flight hours than any other Vans model and as far as I can tell never experienced a inflight breakup. The same can?t be said of some other Vans models with fewer flight hours.
 
I have no horse in this race, having built a Glasair Sportsman rather than an RV.

With that having been said, I've seen what Glasair did to boost gross weight in the Sportsman from 2350 to 2500. Just the increase in size of the wing strut and strut attachments and bolts is enough to pop one's eyes WIDE open. Increases in tubing diameter and thickness in the steel "roll cage" also give an observer the impression that design gross weight is indeed a maximum number.

There ain't no way in heck my airplane is flying over 2350 unless it's in a serious life-saving emergency mode of operations. And even then it would be done with extreme caution and with great respect for airspeeds and the need to adjust them to very conservative levels.

Again, I don't have a horse in this race, but provide the Sportsman as an example where one can see how much beefing up of structure had to be done to add 150lbs of gross weight capacity. It's not insignificant, not in the least.
 
I do stress analysis and certification of aircraft structure. Not going to argue MGW (max gross wt.) but a few comments.

Gust load condition will produce higher G loads when operating an aircraft at *lighter weight*, for a given speed. The lighter AC weight the lower maneuvering speed (Va or Vo). Refresher, big fan of Rod Machado.
https://youtu.be/BAy4w3SYCTo

1800 lbs RV-6 is totally arbatray set by builder based on operational needs. Experimental airplane, end of story. [Question: Does every builder go through and evaluate all the performance and speed limits maticuliously during phase 1 at higher 1800 lbs gross weight?]

We don't know how Van designed/sized structure, set original MGW, determined limiting critical load cases and structure. Van is a degreed Engineer and sure he did "classical stress analysis" to size the structure (and was conservative). Van I also assume used certified aircraft 1.5 factor of safety [limit/design load x 1.5 = ultimate load] to size his structure.

I have not reviewed Van's stress analysis. From +40 years and thousands of RV's flown safely we can assume Van did a good job (including the few in-flight breakups which had causes other than deficits in design). With that said you can break an RV if you do something stupid.

RV-6 has an aerobatic [1375 lb] MGW at +6G. Normal category planes are 3.8G. You can fly your RV-6 at 1800 lbs or [30%] higher than published aerobatic Wt. and wings will not fold up, if you fly your RV like a normal category plane, straight & level. Regardless increase of MGW from 1600 to 1800 a 1.125 factor increases stress and reduces your margins in the air or on ground. [edit]

Exceeding MGW on GA planes is often an issue with low performance GA planes because they will have marginal performance. RV's have an abundance of performance. However at 1800 lb RV on hot day, high DA is not going to perform like a light RV. Also as mentioned aft CG makes it unstable as well.

There have been RV LOC (loss of control, stall) accidents where over gross Wt. and CG was a factor. In fact LOC is one of the biggest causes of accidents. Higher gross and stall speed is not helping.

Bottom line higher gross weight lowers performance and increases stress on the aircraft. Is it unsafe or critical?That's up to the builder and PIC? It's an experimental aircraft. Obviously at operations at 1800 lbs max gross weight one should limit the G loading on the aircraft and land smooth, while avoiding max performance T/O and Ldgs.

Last is Joy, I have flown very light RV6 with a wood prop and they was delight. I've flown really heavy RV6's and they lose a lot of the feel and enjoyment of a light RV6.
 
Last edited:
RV-6 has a lower MGW for 6G / aerobatics, as well as a shorter aft CG. Maybe 1350 or 1375. I don't remember, as I don't fly aerobatics. Larry
This is incorrect. The RV-6/6A is stressed for +6g (Aerobatic Category limit) at 1375 pounds.

Thanks, fair enough... forgot about lower aerobatic weight. So 1375 to 1800 is about 30%. So at 1800 lbs you would be around 3.8G limit of utility category plane.

To be clear I'm not condoning or recommending Flying at higher than 1600 lbs ever.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, fair enough... forgot about lower aerobatic weight. So 1375 to 1800 is about 30%. So at 1800 lbs you would be around 3.8G limit of utility category plane.
This only applies if the extra 200lb you're adding to the airframe is distributed evenly throughout the airframe. If you could "spread" 200lb of paint on the airplane, then yes, operating it at 1800lb and restricted to Normal category only would be no more dangerous than operating at 1600lb and restricting to Utility category.

When you take the extra 200lb and load it in *one place* in the airplane, say by carrying two "bubba" passengers (270lb) instead of two ICAO standard passengers (170lb), you "point load" the airframe, and the structure near that extra load isn't just carrying 1800/1600 or about 1.15x the load it saw before, it's now seeing 270/170 or about 1.6x the load it saw before.

As someone else said before: "It's not just the wing loading."
 
My naive question is: As the 2nd owner of the RV6A, can we adjust the builders gross weight of 1650lbs up to 1800 lbs? One response above was, "Phase 1 Flight test". Is that sound accurate to the rest of you?

When the Sport Pilot rules came out some pilots wanted to lower the gross wt of their planes to meet the rules. FAA would not allow it. Don’t know about increasing the wt?
 
When the Sport Pilot rules came out some pilots wanted to lower the gross wt of their planes to meet the rules. FAA would not allow it. Don’t know about increasing the wt?

This is addressed on the EAA Website. For whatever reason the FAA treats weight increase for LSA as a one way street. Once an airplane has been certified above 1320 LBS it no longer qualifies for LSA (edit; even if the Gross Weight is recertified below 1320)

Kirk
(Disclaimer, this was as of 2017. If anyone has more current information please post)
 
Last edited:
vans finally caught up with the reality of how the -6 is being flown

Guess it should say “how the -6 was designed”.
As for revisiting the issue, it demonstrates what a great company Vans is (given some tidbits) :)

I’d now just wish they would reverse engineer the -6 (alright, the A could be included as well ;)) with the latest technical means available, and maybe raise some of the restrictive limitations such as Vne and MTOM...

Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself, thanks Vans!
 
I?d now just wish they would reverse engineer the -6 (alright, the A could be included as well ;)) with the latest technical means available, and maybe raise some of the restrictive limitations such as Vne and MTOM

This is the experimental world so you are free to do this on your own but I would recommend some engineering and/or testing.
 
Back
Top