What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-6 as LSA?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Recently I have noticed an RV6 for sale in Ohio that is claimed to be a Light Sport Aircraft.

Is this plausible/possible, or is it advertising ignorance (BS).

I am building an RV6a, and I am having some eye related medical issues that are currently unresolved. Flying my aircraft with a Sport Aircraft License may be the only way that I can ever fly it.

Everything on VAF concerning LSA aircraft is a discussion of the RV12.
 
There is no practical way an RV-6 can be flown as a Light Sport Aircraft!
Max speed too high.
Stall speed too high.
Gross weight too high.
If you want to go LSA, RV-12 is the only RV answer!
 
LSA

Seen an RV6 at Sebring Fly-In that was reg. as a LSA it is possible.I ask about it and the builder said the prop was pitched to limit top speed and it meet the wieght requirement.I belive the guys name is Jay at Lakeland South airport in Lakeland Fl.
Bob
 
I would be very skeptical of an RV-6 with a "clean" stall speed below 45 kts.

Ask Van what he thinks!
 
Last edited:
I have flown the some $160,000 LSA?s and they don?t clean stall speed below 45 kts. Build it how you want it. It?s Experimental you are the builder..
 
I have flown the some $160,000 LSA?s and they don?t clean stall speed below 45 kts. Build it how you want it. It?s Experimental you are the builder..

That's all well and good, but it doesn't make it legal for a sport pilot.

And just as a side note, if it is certificated as LSA and doesn't meet the requirements, then the airworthiness certificate is invalid.
 
Most RV-6s weigh almost 1100 pounds empty (or more). Most pilots weigh almost 200 (or more). That doesn't leave a whole lot of weight for fuel if the total weight can't exceed 1320...

A reduction in weight from 1600 to 1320 is about 21% less weight. A reduction in stall speed from 55 to 45 is about 20% less speed. Of course, it's not linear: 81% of the speed gives you 67% of the lift (dynamic pressure is ρv?...), but with VGs and drooping ailerons and wingtip extensions and such, maybe it's possible to get that up to 80% of the lift.

I guess a lighter engine would give you a few more pounds of payload, and would help you stay below the 120-knot max continuous speed. Not sure whether the CG would get too far aft, though...

So while it's theoretically possible, it's pretty impractical. You'd never be able to take up a passenger and stay below 1320 lbs in an airplane that weighs over 1000 lbs empty. And remember that an LSA must have those restrictions since it was first ceritfied: You can't just say "Oh, I'll fly this airplane below 1320 lbs, and put a placard by the tachometer that says: No continuous operation beyond 2100 RPM" if the airplane was originally certified without these restrictions. If an airplane was ever allowed to fly above the LSA maxima, then it can't be flown as an LSA. At least, that's my understanding.
 
I don?t want to get into a LSA ruling contest just saying there?s some certificated as LSA that do not meet all the LSA rules also. So if I can build my own Experimental Aircraft with US Made Engine and aluminum parts and kept it lite to meet the LSA rules than why not.
 
Don't mess up a good thing!

I don?t want to get into a LSA ruling contest

There's no "ruling contest". It's all in the regulations.

And the regulations specifically state that if the aircraft does not meet the requirements of the certificate, the airworthiness certificate is invalid.

The more people "push" the regs, the tighter the regs will get.
We have the best regulations for flying experimental aircraft in the world.
Why are there always people wanting to mess up a good thing?
 
As the owner of an RV-6, I also cannot see how this plane can meet the LSA specs. Even when I throttle back to 2000 rpm, the cruise speed is still way too high, and the stall speeds are way too high as well.
 
Over the years of reading first flights and reading their empty weights, it's evident that most people build "heavy" RV's with all the goodies. Therefore it would be hard for most people to understand that it is possible to build a very light RV. Our 9a weighed in empty at 893 lb. Recreation Aviation Australia wanted an independent weighing of our 9a before they would register it in their 600 kg (1329 lb) maximum take off class to verify that it indeed was 893 kg.Our light 9a stalled clean at 38 kts and 35 kts with flaps.

Buid a -6 light and you will lower the stall speed!

There are a lot more light RV's around but their owner/builders mostly keep quiet because they are tired of the remarks they get from the "none believers".Both the wife and I are light and with the light aircraft we have a reasonable useful load.
 
Over the years of reading first flights and reading their empty weights, it's evident that most people build "heavy" RV's with all the goodies. Therefore it would be hard for most people to understand that it is possible to build a very light RV. Our 9a weighed in empty at 893 lb. Recreation Aviation Australia wanted an independent weighing of our 9a before they would register it in their 600 kg (1329 lb) maximum take off class to verify that it indeed was 893 kg.Our light 9a stalled clean at 38 kts and 35 kts with flaps.
Buid a -6 light and you will lower the stall speed!
There are a lot more light RV's around but their owner/builders mostly keep quiet because they are tired of the remarks they get from the "none believers".Both the wife and I are light and with the light aircraft we have a reasonable useful load.

I understand building light. My RV-6 weighed in at 994 when I first built it.
Building a short wing RV light does not affect stall speed that much when stall speed is measured at gross weight like the rules say.
I've certificated more than a few RVs over the last 14 years. I've also certificated several hundred LSAs.
You're still going to have a difficult time convincing me that you have an RV-6 that has a clean stall speed of less than 45 kts. @ 1320 lbs.
 
Last edited:
I've certificated more than a few RVs over the last 14 years. I've also certificated several hundred LSAs.
You're still going to have a difficult time convincing me that you have an RV-6 that has a clean stall speed of less than 45 kts. @ 1320 lbs.

Understood, Mel. I've watched with interest as this same debate has gone on several times for the RV-3 and the RV-9. You've convinced me easily that those airframes are unlikely to meet LSA standards, and so it seems obvious an RV-6 is even less likely to do so.

But you're statement above brings up a different question for me. How does any new airframe get certificated as an LSA when it hasn't yet proven it can meet those standards? It seems like a chicken and egg problem: it can only be an LSA if it's always met LSA standards, but nobody knows if it will until after it's been so designated. Even having the designer tweek it afterwards to meet the standards seems to fail the regulatory requirements. Thoughts?

--
Stephen
 
Understood, Mel. I've watched with interest as this same debate has gone on several times for the RV-3 and the RV-9. You've convinced me easily that those airframes are unlikely to meet LSA standards, and so it seems obvious an RV-6 is even less likely to do so.
But you're statement above brings up a different question for me. How does any new airframe get certificated as an LSA when it hasn't yet proven it can meet those standards? It seems like a chicken and egg problem: it can only be an LSA if it's always met LSA standards, but nobody knows if it will until after it's been so designated. Even having the designer tweek it afterwards to meet the standards seems to fail the regulatory requirements. Thoughts?
--
Stephen

SLSAs go through a test phase before being certificated as LSA. An ELSA must be a "certified" replica of an SLSA.
This is done by the kit manufacturer issuing an 8130-15 (certificate of compliance) for the kit.

For SLSAs we first issue a special flight test permit. During this phase, the aircraft is found to "meet the requirements for the certificate requested".
If it does not meet the requirements, it does not receive an airworthiness certificate.

Also the manufacturer of an SLSA submits the same 8130-15 (certificate of compliance) that the aircraft meets the requirements of LSA.
 
Last edited:
SLSAs go through a test phase before being certificated as LSA. . .

Okay, got it. And so this doesn't affect any of the RV-3, RV-9, or now the RV-6 debates about LSA, because in each case, the airplane is actually certificated as E-AB, and then the pilot is claiming Sport Pilot privileges to fly it because it supposedly meets LSA standards, not because it's registered LSA.

Oh, what tangled webs we weave . . .

--
Stephen
 
Exactly!

Okay, got it. And so this doesn't affect any of the RV-3, RV-9, or now the RV-6 debates about LSA, because in each case, the airplane is actually certificated as E-AB, and then the pilot is claiming Sport Pilot privileges to fly it because it supposedly meets LSA standards, not because it's registered LSA.
Oh, what tangled webs we weave . . .
--
Stephen

Yep! You got it!
 
Thanks to all of you for the discussion. The conclusion seems to be that this is not a practical thing to attempt, even if it is marginally possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top