What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Convert RV6 to RV6A

JackW794

Member
Would it be difficult to convert a RV6 to a 6A? The fuselage is under construction with the front legs and tail-wheel attached. Nothing has been done on the empennage and no engine is attached.

If this is possible, what would be the cost of parts for such a change?
 
Noooo! Don?t do it!

Noooo! Don?t do it! Just learn to fly the tailwheel version! I wish more were converted the otherway..back to the conventional (tailwheel)!
 
Easy change

Jack, it is not difficult at any stage and really not a big deal where you are in your build. Build the plane you want - nobody else's opinion is relevant.

If you want to make the change, now is the time. The biggest reason to do it now is you can get the new motor mount with the new nose wheel design. I made the change - with the old motor mount a few years ago. I will probably change to the new mount in the near future. The change is pretty straight forward. The biggest choice you will have is if you want to take the hardware the tail wheel inserts into out of the back of the fuselage or leave it in. I left it in rather than drill out rivets and open the skin up to remove it. I dont know the weight and it is as far back as you can get so it is a consideration in your W&B.

You will be able to sell your old motor mount and gear to one of the expert tail dragger pilots who ground loop and bend their planes so some of the costs can be recovered. Vans has made it easy to get the parts since several have done it and they have good instructions. Have fun with it!
 
Why is it assumed the poster wants an A model because he can't fly a TD? Some of us just like the look and vision while on the ground better, insurance rates, and it has nothing to do with skill level as a pilot.

Jack, I will look for some of the photos I took when I made the change. You can email me if you have any questions.
 
Why is it assumed the poster wants an A model because he can't fly a TD? Some of us just like the look and vision while on the ground better, insurance rates, and it has nothing to do with skill level as a pilot.


.

Rocky I have a buddy here in NE (non RV) who is all about how well erected the conventional gear airplane looks on the ground. Tells me how beneficial it is on unfriendly surfaces but he landed on none. It's usually after a couple beers and goes on for years. When I tell him let's compete let's go to a strip of your choice and see who lands shorter. He says he couldn't afford the risk :D
 
Rocky I have a buddy here in NE (non RV) who is all about how well erected the conventional gear airplane looks on the ground. Tells me how beneficial it is on unfriendly surfaces but he landed on none. It's usually after a couple beers and goes on for years. When I tell him let's compete let's go to a strip of your choice and see who lands shorter. He says he couldn't afford the risk :D

The "A" model will land shorter because you can achieve a higher AOA on flare.
 
The "A" model will land shorter because you can achieve a higher AOA on flare.
Mel with your signature ... I'll start off and say you are right, but.....

How much shorter my friend? I can see the geometry and understand the aerodynamics, but landing short takes a lot more than gear configuration. You also still have to take off. For soft field operations which usually goes with SHORT, the Tail-Dragger is better in my opinion, even if the Trike can land a few feet shorter.... Take off for all models of RV's is longer than landing, so this is not a real advantage. The Trike is about 3 mph slower cruise/top speed. I don't think Van's states different landing distances. The Trike is about 3 mph slower cruise/top speed.


I flew my RV4 w/ short gear legs. I landed with a few MPH above stall in three point typically, which was not full stall. I did that so I did not hit the tail-wheel first. However if I wanted to do full stall, tail wheel hit first and then it plopped onto mains. It was not as elegant or smooth. The pitch angle at touch down was not an issue to land short. I landed and turned off in 300 feet even wheeling it on.

I agree with the other comments. Fly a tail dragger..... Go out and find some tail dragger and take a few lessons. It is not difficult.
 
Last edited:
How much shorter my friend? I can see the geometry and understand the aerodynamics, but landing short takes a lot more than gear configuration. You also still have to take off. For soft field operations which usually goes with SHORT, the Tail-Dragger is better in my opinion, even if the Trike can land a few feet shorter.... Take off for all models of RV's is longer than landing, so this is not a real advantage.

This sounds like a post made just for the sake of arguing a point?

I don't disagree that with any airplane, if the takeoff is longer than the landing then it could be argued that short landing is of no value, but that is wrong. It takes much more skill of the pilot to plant the wheels on a specific spot on a runway, at a very specific speed, than it does to execute as short of a takeoff run from a specific spot. So being able to land shorter than taking off can be of value.

Regarding the comment Mel made, the physics is pretty basic.... an airplane will fly at its slowest possible speed when flown near its critical angle of attack. Slowest speed equates to shortest take-off or landing.
A tail dragger RV-6 can not attain any where near critical angle of attack when the gear is in contact with the ground. An RV-6A can get much closer to doing so.

Note that this should not be construed to mean that just any pilot will be able to make an RV-6A take off or land shorter than any other pilot in an RV-6.
It requires a lot of practice to fly an RV out at the edge of the performance envelope, but the difference in performance potential is real.
 
Taildraggers are harder to land than tri gear aircraft. They are a challenge. I however enjoy the challenge and get a great deal of satisfaction out of a perfect wheel landing or a great 3 pointer. That?s why I went with the TD.
From a pure operational perspective there is no question the trigear is better but then I would lose the satisfaction. I enjoy it and will keep striving for that perfect wheel landing. It probably will forever elude me but it sure is fun trying!
George
 
The easiest way to do that conversion is to convert your -6 to Cash and then convert the Cash to a -6A.

Unless you have built an RV or have extensive aircraft structure repair experience, I wouldn't suggest you undertake it.
 
This sounds like a post made just for the sake of arguing a point?

I don't disagree that with any airplane, if the takeoff is longer than the landing then it could be argued that short landing is of no value, but that is wrong. It takes much more skill of the pilot to plant the wheels on a specific spot on a runway, at a very specific speed, than it does to execute as short of a takeoff run from a specific spot. So being able to land shorter than taking off can be of value.

Regarding the comment Mel made, the physics is pretty basic.... an airplane will fly at its slowest possible speed when flown near its critical angle of attack. Slowest speed equates to shortest take-off or landing.
A tail dragger RV-6 can not attain any where near critical angle of attack when the gear is in contact with the ground. An RV-6A can get much closer to doing so.

Note that this should not be construed to mean that just any pilot will be able to make an RV-6A take off or land shorter than any other pilot in an RV-6.
It requires a lot of practice to fly an RV out at the edge of the performance envelope, but the difference in performance potential is real.
I am not arguing I am making a valid point. I think your reply is just to argue since you seem to agree with me. Also you are making straw-man arguments about things I did not say or imply.
"It takes much more skill of the pilot to plant the wheels on a specific spot on a runway, at a very specific speed"
Yep we agree. The claim to fame of a Trike is easier landing (more forgiving from ground loops) not shorter landings. That is all I am saying. However the new Trike Carbon Cub they are doing market studies with, having bush pilots fly, apparently does land and takeoff in shorter distances. On T/O it can rotate to higher angle of attack, and on landing it can slam brakes on with out tipping on nose.... No argument just expressing my opinion, RV-A models short field abilities are not practically speaking, not better than the TG to any significant degree. Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Taildraggers are harder to land than tri gear aircraft. They are a challenge. I however enjoy the challenge and get a great deal of satisfaction out of a perfect wheel landing or a great 3 pointer. That’s why I went with the TD.
From a pure operational perspective there is no question the trigear is better but then I would lose the satisfaction. I enjoy it and will keep striving for that perfect wheel landing. It probably will forever elude me but it sure is fun trying!
George

That is fine statement and common wisdom. I agree TG is more fun... However I have taught a lot of folks... almost 2000 hours dual given, mostly in certified trikes. However I have done a few hundred tail dragged enforcement and transition training in RV's and other tail dragger's. The RV is easy to land regardless of gear configuration overall.... If a pilot is a not skilled it does not matter which gear. A botched landing in a RV trigear can result in the plane on it's back..... However a competent pilot with 3-10 hours of training can learn to fly (land and takeoff) a tail dragger, and likely after 30 to 50 takeoffs/landings would not say it's harder but more fun. However that does not mean they will never ground loop, but then again an RV tri-gear can't say you will never flip over.

I do AGREE that a TG is less forgiving of a poor landing or take off skills, and it does not "auto correct" like a nose wheel plane will. That is true.

In my time teaching I only "lost one student", and by lost I mean after +5 hours they could not land to save their life, so they got another instructor which was good... However they ended up flying with a few instructions and quit. Most of my Pvt students took their check ride in 40-50 hours. All my other students that started with me finished their rating (Pvt, Commercial, Inst, ME). The point being skills do vary... and you have to be comfortable. If you don't want to dare the ground loop monster, then by all means get a Tri-gear... but you are missing the fun.

The comment about buying a A model outright is a good one. A person with no building experience and trying to convert the plane would not be the best idea, unless they had help and resources (people with tools and skill to help)..
 
Last edited:
Taildraggers are harder to land than tri gear aircraft. They are a challenge. I however enjoy the challenge and get a great deal of satisfaction out of a perfect wheel landing or a great 3 pointer. That?s why I went with the TD.
From a pure operational perspective there is no question the trigear is better

Hmm, I would say different, definitely NOT harder.
Pure operational perspective, the same.

Just my two cents worth.

When done correctly, they are both challenging.
When done incorrectly, it?s the pilot, not the airplane.
If you need a machine that will save your bacon, perhaps you should play in a different skillet.
 
It has been established through government funded research that TD pilots are more manly and have higher sex drive. But do what you like.
 
If you do

Hello,
If you do the conversion I would be interested in your -6 things. I have an 6A that I would like to make a -6
 
My frugal opinion...

When I was looking for a flying RV to buy, I missed on a couple nice taildraggers. I was not tailwheel endorsed and I know some high time pilots that seemed to get a little nerved up when the wind started blowing 8 kts? I decided to go get a tailwheel endorsement. I got great instruction in a Citabria. I was signed off in 2.4 hours. Certainly a less forgiving type landing gear to fly but I was now confident I could fly one if I found the right one. In the end I found a very low time 7A in a price range I was comfortable with. The insurance with my limited tailwheel experience was literally less that half of what it would have been in the taildragger. That amount of savings paid for more than half the fuel I would burn in a year! The insurance would go down over time as I gained more tailwheel experience but I have not heard of any taildragger insurance, no matter the pilot experience being any less than what I pay for my tri-gear plane. I've kept it on a short grass strip, one way in-oneway out, the last 4 years. It has performs well. I am also a bit vertically challenged and I really have a hard time seeing out the front of a taildragger. I really like to see what I am pointed at.

All that said. I love the taildraggers. I think they look extra cool. There is some swagger to your story when you operate one. I would enjoy the extra challenge of operating one. If someday I ever lose my compulsion to do the most fiscally responsible thing associated with everything I do. Maybe I'll treat myself to a beautiful taildragger. :)
 
Last edited:
Would it be difficult to convert a RV6 to a 6A? The fuselage is under construction with the front legs and tail-wheel attached. Nothing has been done on the empennage and no engine is attached.

If this is possible, what would be the cost of parts for such a change?

Blasphemy!
Just kidding. I too suggest you just grab a couple hours of instruction and become a tailwheel pilot.
 
All that said. I love the taildraggers. I think they look extra cool. There is some swagger to your story when you operate one. I would enjoy the extra challenge of operating one. If someday I ever lose my compulsion to do the most fiscally responsible thing associated with everything I do. Maybe I'll treat myself to a beautiful taildragger. :)

Your participation in this hobby betrays your claim of fiscal responsibility in everything that you do, but I bet most of us on here understand. That was for if the wife gets on here and reads your posts, right? 😁
 
I have several thousand hours in tail wheel aircraft but I ended up buying a trike gear RV because of the fit and finish, glass panel and low time injected engine and CS prop. It flies beautifully and was obviously built very straight, I really like it a lot. My wife has never flown a trike before, all her time has been in 3 different tailwheel aircraft. It has been quite a while since she has flown but the other day we went out and did some circuits and she did 2 landings, both done quite nicely before she said...you told me a trike was easy but I had no idea just how easy, lol. We both just wanted to be sure she could operate it if something happened to me while flying.
I enjoy flying tailwheel aircraft but I?ve always associated them with boondocks flying and rough fields.
Our RV is a fun plane to fly be it gentlemen aerobatics or cross country. I have no intention of operating it in rough fields. Gravel or grass strips are fine but 95% of the time it?s a paved strip. I owned several Mooney?s over the years and anywhere I?d fly the Mooney the RV is fine. Just don?t do those goofy chop and drop landings you often see at airports and you?ll never have a problem.
 
Back
Top