What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Learning to fly in a -6

walkman

Well Known Member
So a great thing happened this weekend. My long time g/f who has previously been absolutely terrified of flying, resistant to anything airplane, and had to do shots to go on a trip, took a discovery flight and came down to earth all pumped up and wanting to get her license.

As with all good things, this now brings its own issues. I have a 180 c/s -6 with a glass panel. It burns my butt to rent a da-20 or something for $110/hr when I've got a perfectly good airplane in the hangar.

Can she learn in the -6? If not completely, what about mixing up some -6 hours?
 
Find a Champ, Cub, Citabria, whatever.... and learn how to fly. The skill set will be with her for whatever she flies later.
 
Citabria and/or Decathelon

Skills learned in either of these aircraft are "pretty much" directly transferable to a Van's -4; -6 or -8. After license in one of these aircraft it shouldn't be more than 5 hours transition into Vans. (I had a Citabria before I built my -8 so I could be bias!)
 
I was hoping not to buy another airplane, but I suppose if I could find a cheap tail dragger that I could resell in a year without a loss I could do it.
 
champ

Bob Willis, 6GUN on the forums, has a very nice Champ for sell. He's in Havana, Florida, just a couple hundred miles south of you. 850-264-1710. His price is right too.
 
I was hoping not to buy another airplane, but I suppose if I could find a cheap tail dragger that I could resell in a year without a loss I could do it.
I?m not sure if people are just suggesting you not use your RV-6 witch is fair enough but legally you can use your RV-6 for all the PPL training, just find a CFI willing to give her the training in the -6 and your good to go. Do you want a brand new student pilot beating up your -6? That?s another question.
 
Potential impact on the learning experience

There is also the issue that learning to be a basic, competent private pilot and pass the test in a -6 is likely to take longer than learning in a tamer trainer. For a highly motivated, self-confident, and/or tenacious student, that path is clearly doable and we can cite examples. However, for someone who comes into the learning experience with some fear and concerns, I would be afraid that steepening the learning curve and probably extending the required hours to checkride would ultimately be the worse decision I could have made. Just MTC.
 
best vs most expedient vs cheapest etc.

I think there's good, better, best ways....
seems some folks think a glider, then stearman, then T-6 was the best way.
( or tiger moth, Chipmunk, Harvard eh!)
you could argue that learing in an RV-6 is like starting in a T-6!
no doubt a LOT easier to find an instructor proficient in a C-150 or Cherokee though.
 
There is also the issue that learning to be a basic, competent private pilot and pass the test in a -6 is likely to take longer than learning in a tamer trainer...

If the goal is to produce a "tame" (i.e. "barely competent") pilot, then by all means stick with a baby carriage like a 172.

But if the goal is to get her into the -6 anyway, then you will likely spend less time (total) starting her out in the -6. It's not like the six is hard to fly, so why infect a new student with all the bad habits that come from learning in a spam can? Start her out right - she won't know the difference anyway.

Just my opinion - with only my own "self taught" experience with the Hiperbipe as my guide...
 
To me, it is a stepping stone approach, a progression of training. Starting out with a lightly wing loaded airplane that forces you to use stick and rudder skills, get's blown around by the slightest wind, and forces you to be honest will transfer to anything you fly.

I am no military training expert, but the progression in WWII was to start with a Laison or Basic Trainer, then Primary Trainer, like a Stearman or PT-19, then onto an Advanced Trainer, like a AT6, before you stepped into the hotter hardware.

It is easy to assume that because RV's are so easy to fly that they make good trainers. I believe, at least for tailwheel, this is one reason they do not. They may be too easy, right up to the point that you leave the runway, which has happened too often lately, three instances I know of in the last year which where all pilot error, calm wind, etc...low time tail wheel folks who got the majority of their training in their own RV.
I think Louise has some very good points, things happen quickly in a 6. And of course, Russ is correct, there is nothing to prevent you from doing it in a 6, if you really want to. And to Michaels point, stay away from the nose wheel spam cans if you want to fly tailwheel.

I will add that natural instincts and ability vary from person to person. Using my military example, many pilots where washed out before they ever stepped up. On the other hand, some people might be able to step right into a 6 and fly it better than I do. Who know's.
 
Last edited:
If the goal is to produce a "tame" (i.e. "barely competent") pilot, then by all means stick with a baby carriage like a 172.

Hold on a sec. Pilots don't get tickets by immaculate certification.
Aircraft type is not the crucial factor. The instructors skill in transferring knowledge and the curriculum is.

Yes there are "lame" instructors. But that would not change from a 150 to an RV. Identify the right instructor and the training will be good.

RVs are fast and powerful compared to trainers. I think it would be a disservice to subject a student to that in the first few hrs of learning the skillset. Transition sometime during primary training? Sure, maybe. Depends on the student progress doesn't it?

And it is too bad that pilots like me that actually got spin training in a 150 when it was required in the PTS are barely competent. :mad:
 
Last edited:
Carol learned

61 year old Carol learned in a Cessna 140. I bought it for 25K and sold it for 25K. I spent a little $$ on it ,, sholder harness, ect.
Find your girl a C140 and have fun flying it. When she finishes up you will find a buyer.
 
Call your insurance agent and find out how much they want to add a student pilot to the named insured list. That may influence your choice.
 
We have a primary student taking instruction in his personally owned Mooney Ovation right now. There have been several incidents including a very expensive prop strike. Could the student have had trouble in a Cessna 150? Yes, but it is less likely and would have been cheaper had something happened in that simpler slower airplane.
 
An RV is no less "tame" than any other airplane. A J-3 would challenge a new tailwheel pilot more than an RV. Regarding learning to fly from scratch, a new student doesn't know the difference between what we (as experienced pilots) consider to be a relatively responsive airplane (RV) vs. a pig of an airplane (172). The new pilot will immediately adjust, and will take no more time to learn in an RV than in a 172 or Stearman or whatever. Didn't the Nigerian Airforce build a bunch of RV-6's for use as primary trainers? RVs are powderpuff airplanes.
 
I tend to agree. Not mentioned that I have seen, is that YOU will be flying with her often, and she will pick up lots of skills from the heavy exposure to the 6. I have seen this fact alone play an important part of training a competent pilot. Having the aircraft available, and not having to pay for some rental, plays a big role in training. I finally gave up on trying to get an instructor, a plane, and my schedule together and gave up. Bought me a plane and learned to fly it and got my ticket the fast easy way.

An RV is no less "tame" than any other airplane. A J-3 would challenge a new tailwheel pilot more than an RV. Regarding learning to fly from scratch, a new student doesn't know the difference between what we (as experienced pilots) consider to be a relatively responsive airplane (RV) vs. a pig of an airplane (172). The new pilot will immediately adjust, and will take no more time to learn in an RV than in a 172 or Stearman or whatever. Didn't the Nigerian Airforce build a bunch of RV-6's for use as primary trainers? RVs are powderpuff airplanes.
 
Since we are saying the RVs are fine for military training, is there a militarily trained pilot, with experience around GA training that could comment on the differences between military flight training and GA, with reference to the use of RVs?

I have the impression that the worlds are different but that is only opinion.
 
The USAF stepped away from the C-172 some years back in favor of the fully aerobatic T-3A in part because the 172's were "too" easy to fly. The T-3 program was scrapped, as many of you recall (including the scores of spare AEIO-540's and MT props), but the fact remains- Sometimes the path to a pilot certificate should not be as "easy" as possible. Especially if you are planning to step immediately into a more sporty aircraft.

And lets not kid ourselves - RV's are only "high performance" when compared to trainers.... They are still relative toys compared to almost everything else out there. They slow right down like a trainer and have honest handling. They are certainly within the grasp of a primary student worth his/her salt.
 
Last edited:
Start simple and work up

I have to agree with Louise. Frankly, compared to the -8A & 9A, I found the -6A much harder to judge and control the touchdown flare. Landing the -6A was frustrating for me and too easy to drag the tail by getting too slow, but the -8A/9A was a walk in the park.

She went from fearful to excited... I'd be VERY concerned she'll go back to fearful if she gets frustrated right out of the gate. MTC
 
The USAF stepped away from the C-172 some years back in favor of the fully aerobatic T-3A in part because the 172's were "too" easy to fly. The T-3 program was scrapped, as many of you recall (including the scores of spare AEIO-540's and MT props), but the fact remains- Sometimes the path to a pilot certificate should not be as "easy" as possible. Especially if you are planning to step immediately into a more sporty aircraft.

And lets not kid ourselves - RV's are only "high performance" when compared to trainers.... They are still relative toys compared to almost everything else out there. They slow right down like a trainer and have honest handling. They are certainly within the grasp of a primary student worth his/her salt.

+1. And the fact is that unless we learned to fly in an RV, or are teaching someone else to fly in an RV, we're not qualified to make judgments on the RV being more "difficult" or that it would take more time for primary flight training. That's pure speculation. Saying that you had trouble with the pitch sensitivity of an RV-6A after hundreds of hours in a 172 has no bearing on the initial student. People think a Pitts is "demanding", but from what I hear from some well-known Pitts instructors, a zero time pilot could probably learn to fly one faster than the 30,000 hr airline guys who have little tailwheel experience. Negative transfer is a powerful thing. It's like learning to fly in a tailwheel vs. a trike. The new pilot doesn't know the difference and will take no more time to learn in the tailwheel. And a 160 hp RV-6 with 2-up is hardly more high performance than a 180 Cherokee. I hope nobody says one of those would be too much for a new pilot to handle learning in.
 
She went from fearful to excited... I'd be VERY concerned she'll go back to fearful if she gets frustrated right out of the gate. MTC

Let her learn to fly in the same type plane that took her from "fearful to excited" so she will remain excited.

Got some (RV) testosterone flowing in this thread. ;)

I hate to think what might have happened if I had taken primary training in my RV-6...........
 
Last edited:
... And a 160 hp RV-6 with 2-up is hardly more high performance than a 180 Cherokee. I hope nobody says one of those would be too much for a new pilot to handle learning in.

Wow, I have to wonder if you have actually flown a 180 Cherokee. I have, a lot, and find any RV-6 to be in a whole different and very much higher performance category.
 
Wow, I have to wonder if you have actually flown a 180 Cherokee. I have, a lot, and find any RV-6 to be in a whole different and very much higher performance category.

I've flown both. If you want to do the math, a 180 Cherokee with 2-up has a better power-to-weight ratio than a 160hp RV-6 with 2-up, both with the same fuel. A loaded 150-160hp RV-6 doesn't feel very high performance to me. Yeah, it's a little faster and it rolls faster. But a 150 rolls a good bit faster than a 172. Nobody is saying a 150 is too high performance. And I don't know that the RV being a little faster than the Cheroke 180 has to do with much. A Cherokee 180 is a lot faster than a 150. What does top speed have to do with doing circuits at pattern speed, learning to fly the airplane? Is it possibly that the thought of a primary student learning in an RV deflates our Walter Mitty self image as a hotstuff "high performance" RV pilot?
 
Last edited:
Just a reminder, the OP is talking about a 6. They have the little wheel in the back. I developed most of my stick, rudder, and tailwheel skills in a squirrly antique, not in the 6.
Our newly minted RV owner in the neighborhood has put 40 hours in a J5 with his new 7 waiting in his hangar until he can get his transition from Mike Seager. I know he will be prepared.
I am not saying other folks are wrong but I know this works. Take that for whatever it may be worth.
Most of all, be thrilled she want a to learn. That is awesome!
 
... Is it possibly that the thought of a primary student learning in an RV deflates our Walter Mitty self image as a hotstuff "high performance" RV pilot?...

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

I've read stories of teenagers flying their daddy's P-51 on their initial solo...

If you don't know something is hard, you just deal with it. I'd say give the girl a chance and see how she does. If the experience doesn't work out, then move on to something else.
 
Last edited:
You can be successful either way with the right student/instructor combo. I'm a new tail wheel instructor myself in a Citabria.

I think it's better to learn to add and subtract with a pencil and paper before using a calculator, the same with airplanes. I'm a big believer in this concept when it comes to IFR flying, students with moving maps (calculators) blindly follow it without knowing why and it can lead to trouble.

I learned tail wheel in a champ and I believe the antiques are the pencil and paper. They make you understand what is happening and why and make you fly them. Plus they are a TON of fun!
 
interesting

" I've read stories of teenagers flying their daddy's P-51 on their initial solo..."

Interesting tale...like to read the account but, could not find it on the internet.
 
" I've read stories of teenagers flying their daddy's P-51 on their initial solo..."

Interesting tale...like to read the account but, could not find it on the internet.

This type of story used to pop up in Sport Aviation from time to time back in the early 80's. One kid flew the family P-51, Pitts, Jetranger and about 12 other aircraft on the day of this PPL checkride IIRC. The "initial solo" thing was a Reno racer Mustang, to boot (I think).
 
I've read stories of teenagers flying their daddy's P-51 on their initial solo...

If you don't know something is hard, you just deal with it. I'd say give the girl a chance and see how she does. If the experience doesn't work out, then move on to something else.

... And, not a "story I heard", but a fact, a new P51 pilot with a significant amount of training, torque rolled his $2M airplane into the pavement on his first solo a couple of years ago.
Give the girl a chance? I know you chat about expanding the envelope by taking chances and i dont totally disagree but I guess the OP needs to decide himself, along with her, if that is the program they want to sign up for.
It wouldn't be mine. Not everybody can just "deal with it".
 
I'd have to agree with Luddite and Toobuilder here. RVs are very docile and only high performance in terms of a few more knots and higher ROC. Can easily fix that with the throttle if you want. RVs are easy to land period and besides having quicker control response and lighter forces, don't fly much differently than a Cherokee for instance. If you start on an RV with a good instructor, it would all seem normal from the beginning because you have nothing else to compare it to.

A good instructor is key. My Dad learned to fly in a T6 which is a WAY more challenging airplane to fly than any RV. He did fine and so did most of the other students with any talent.

I would have loved to train on an RV6. I think learning on a TW aircraft will make you a better pilot in any aircraft.

I know many RV pilots like to pretend that they are hot ships. I can't agree. Easiest airplane to fly that I have flown. Anyone who had previous Citabria, Cub or TW Cessna time previously have all said how easy it was to fly a TW RV.
 
... And, not a "story I heard", but a fact, a new P51 pilot with a significant amount of training, torque rolled his $2M airplane into the pavement on his first solo a couple of years ago...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it seems his training, skill, or both was inadequate compared to his checking account. Thousands of snot nosed kids learned to fly the Mustang - often loaded to the max with guns and bombs and fuel - with minimal training. Certainly not trivializing the accomplishment of mastering the airplane, but plenty did it and lived. This guy simply did it wrong.

... Give the girl a chance? I know you chat about expanding the envelope by taking chances and i dont totally disagree but I guess the OP needs to decide himself, along with her, if that is the program they want to sign up for.
It wouldn't be mine. Not everybody can just "deal with it".

First off, I use a fairly methodical, building block approach to understanding of any airplane I fly. Lets not minimize this by saying I'm "taking chances" and just get lucky. Anyone who gets that impression from my posts is not reading. Second, I'm in full agreement that the OP should decide. He has an easy to fly airplane with conventional handling... Lets not shoot down the idea of using an RV to train just because most of us never had the opportunity and were stuck with spam cans. But let's also remember that a whole new generation are learning to fly in these slick little composite LSA ships which behave and look nothing like the 50 year old standbys from Cessna and Piper.

BTW, Wasn't the -9 developed as a trainer?

Anyway, a good instructor should be able to evaluate if the airplane is a barrier to learning, right? Certainly not us...
 
I'd see if you can grab a champ, chief, cub, 120, 140 or similar cheap. You'll save on fuel, have no chance of her banging something up on your RV (leaving you grounded) and you'll be able to sell the champ/whatever and beak even...which will save a lot versus renting.

The other advantage is that even if it's just for the first 20 hours, the champ needs more rudder in the air, makes you think more about performance, density altitude, weight etc.

Plus...you'd have a champ for those hot summer evenings....
 
Sorry Michael, I am sure you wouldn't take chances with training or prepping to fly a 6 as a trainer.
I think the thread drifted a bit, my fault, with the original suggestion of training in something I feel is more appropriate, which is obviously a contested opinion. I have know doubt you can learn to fly in a 6. I just don't think it is the best path.
 
One gal's experience

Okay, let me confess in as clear of manner as possible. As a person who had a great fear (and love) of flying when I started my primary training, I am quite certain that I would not have finished if I had started in my RV-6. If I had finished, it would have taken twice as long (which financially would likely have meant I wouldn't have finished).

If you are relaxed and truly thrilled by flying, I have no doubt that all you hot shots out there were capable of learning quickly in a -6. Our neighbor's kid is full of confidence and love of aviation and he just did it with ease. But, we are talking about someone who likely still has a bunch of fear and unease with flying. (I know from my own experience that you can love flying and still be very fearful of the experience.) We are not talking about you (as hard as that might be for some of you to ponder).

Starting in a tamer plane will allow her to learn with the information and response needed for a kitchen faucet instead of a fire hose. As she learns and gains confidence, then consider transitioning to the -6.

Of course, if the objective is to set up a "make or break" experience and weed her out of the pilot community (as happens to many military pilot candidates), put her in the -6 and tell her to sink or swim.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with Louise. Frankly, compared to the -8A & 9A, I found the -6A much harder to judge and control the touchdown flare. Landing the -6A was frustrating for me and too easy to drag the tail by getting too slow, but the -8A/9A was a walk in the park.

She went from fearful to excited... I'd be VERY concerned she'll go back to fearful if she gets frustrated right out of the gate. MTC

You hit the nail on the head here. There is more to training than learning to fly. It is important that she retain the desire and enthusiasm she has right now. Starting off in a trainer will allow her to pick up the basics a little quicker and get comfortable in an aircraft prior to the added stress of a faster machine. Plus it takes the wear and tear of those first landing off the less-forgiving RV gear. I say put her in a trainer at least through solo and then transistion to the RV. By then she will know the basics and hopefully be comfortable on the radios. Plus coming off the high of first solo will keep her enthusiasm up during the transition. Or get her lincense in the trainer and then transition to the RV.


If the goal is to produce a "tame" (i.e. "barely competent") pilot, then by all means stick with a baby carriage like a 172.

Michael, All of us "tame", "barely competant" pilots will be sure to stay out of your way as you trot by on your high horse. A competent pilot can be produced from any aircraft with the right instructor. They may not have the experiance to hop in your hiperbipe or an RV, but that is the purpose of transition training. Good judgement is just as important as stick&rudder skills. It doesn't take a high-performace aircraft to teach good judgement.
 
Sorry Michael, I am sure you wouldn't take chances with training or prepping to fly a 6 as a trainer.
I think the thread drifted a bit, my fault, with the original suggestion of training in something I feel is more appropriate, which is obviously a contested opinion. I have know doubt you can learn to fly in a 6. I just don't think it is the best path.

Not a problem.

I don't exactly consider the -6 to be the "best" trainer either (same with the 172, BTW), but it IS acceptable, and most importantly, available. "If you can't be with the one you love..."

I just think its silly to go out and buy a dedicated training airplane when she's going to end up in the six anyway.

And above all, to use a phrase that keeps getting thrown in my face in these threads - we're not all the same. In this case, she might be like many of us and view flying as a challenge that can and must be mastered, rather than a deep seated fear that should be merely overcome. She may not be scared out of her mind with flying... She might actually pick up on it quickly. I know that it's "normal" to consider females as somewhat timid in these circumstances, but I have met plenty who are anything but. In all my days riding motorcycles or racing cars, there have been plenty of females who are right there with the boys putting it on the line with a vengeance.

But our opinions really mean absolutely nothing... It's up to the OP in the end.

But for the record, you all know I'm all for giving her the chance.
 
She may not be scared out of her mind with flying... She might actually pick up on it quickly. I know that it's "normal" to consider females as somewhat timid in these circumstances, but I have met plenty who are anything but.

Remember, this thread started with:
My long time g/f who has previously been absolutely terrified of flying, resistant to anything airplane, and had to do shots to go on a trip, took a discovery flight and came down to earth all pumped up and wanting to get her license.

The discussion should have nothing to do with male vs. female and no one suggested it did until now. The person under discussion is a person that has a history of debilitating fear of flying. It is unlikely that one flight completely removed those feelings but it did excite her to do more. If she starts in a slow trainer and defies all reasonable expectations and feels complete comfortable and wants to use the RV-6, great! But, I strongly urge Walkman to urge her to have introduction lessons in a tamer plane. I also encourage men with an underlying fear of flying to start in a slower, tamer airplane. The advice shouldn't change for males vs. females.
 
An RV is no less "tame" than any other airplane. A J-3 would challenge a new tailwheel pilot more than an RV.

I don't know about that. I got my t/w endorsement around '91 in a cub and it was a breeze. probably 1 hour of dual tops.

I transitioned to a -6 a year ago and I remember thinking to myself, around hour 6 or 8 "why am I doing this to myself". it probably wasn't until I had 20 hours in it that I was starting to feel pretty comfortable.
 
Michael, All of us "tame", "barely competant" pilots will be sure to stay out of your way as you trot by on your high horse...

Let?s be careful to keep it civil here. There are several generations of pilots/instructors that have only flown trainer type aircraft. Accident statistics prove that there are too many of these "experienced" pilots who have not been exposed to and therefore do not understand even the basic physics of flight. These pilots don?t understand the use of rudder and are terrified of stalls. These "barely competent" pilots are only allowed to exist because we build incredibly easy to fly airplanes like the 172 and Cherokee. It is a fact that many of these pilots no longer possess the skills they had to demonstrate on their PPL checkride, and therefore should not be carrying passengers. Yes, I hold them in contempt - because I take the time to learn my airplane and feel that no matter how "good" I think I am, I'm never going to be "good enough" - while many other pilots are satisfied with simply making it to the next pancake breakfast. If you identify yourself with this group, and place me on a "high horse", so be it.


A competent pilot can be produced from any aircraft with the right instructor...

Sort of. You're not going to put a "competent" Ercoupe, F-16 or 747 driver in a Hiperbipe, Eagle or Pitts without essentially starting over. And it?s not because the biplanes are "difficult" - they're not... They simply require skills not needed in the other aircraft.

And also let?s not forget the fact that we are really running out of "good" instructors. We have spawned multiple generations of kids who have never flown anything other than the "Land-O-Matic" trainers, and don't have a clue. This is partly institutional (FAA), and partly because many people take the easy way out when given the chance. Why learn rudder use or stalls when you don't have to?


So it all really boils down to two distinct opinions based on individual bias - those that thrive on a challenge, and those that have to be spoon fed all the way through. Neither is any more valid than the other. We might as well discuss whether blue is ?better? than red.
 
Remember, this thread started with:

The discussion should have nothing to do with male vs. female and no one suggested it did until now. The person under discussion is a person that has a history of debilitating fear of flying. It is unlikely that one flight completely removed those feelings but it did excite her to do more. If she starts in a slow trainer and defies all reasonable expectations and feels complete comfortable and wants to use the RV-6, great! But, I strongly urge Walkman to urge her to have introduction lessons in a tamer plane. I also encourage men with an underlying fear of flying to start in a slower, tamer airplane. The advice shouldn't change for males vs. females.

Thanks everyone for the input.

It may just be confirmation bias, but I think Louise has convinced me.

I think I'm going to start her off for a few hours in the Diamond with the instructor that got her excited about flying. Then after, say, 5 hours IF she wants to, fly her down to Mallard's and get her a few hours of dual in a 160hp, fixed pitch, relatively basic -6 with the guy who transitioned me. At that point we can make a decision on what direction to go. I think, given the history of fear, rocking the boat is the last thing I should do.

I'd love to be able to justify buying a low and slow, simple airplane, but I just dropped 16 g's on a new panel a year after buying the airplane. I'm feeling a tad depleted right now. :(
 
I don't know about that. I got my t/w endorsement around '91 in a cub and it was a breeze. probably 1 hour of dual tops.

I transitioned to a -6 a year ago and I remember thinking to myself, around hour 6 or 8 "why am I doing this to myself". it probably wasn't until I had 20 hours in it that I was starting to feel pretty comfortable.

Everyone's different, I guess. I feel the RV has the same powderpuff ground handling as a Citabria...in other words also most too easy for tailwheel training. If it took you awhile to get comfortable in the RV, I'm guessing it had nothing to with its tailwheel ground handling characteristics, and more the flying characteristics. You can also see over the nose in an RV. Cubs have little forward visibility, stiff gear, and a big rudder, which makes it prone to overcontrolling. I think it's just a better tailwheel trainer than and is more "challenging" to fly and land than an RV, especially in wind. But again, everyone's different.

Let’s be careful to keep it civil here. There are several generations of pilots/instructors that have only flown trainer type aircraft. Accident statistics prove that there are too many of these "experienced" pilots who have not been exposed to and therefore do not understand even the basic physics of flight. These pilots don’t understand the use of rudder and are terrified of stalls. These "barely competent" pilots are only allowed to exist because we build incredibly easy to fly airplanes like the 172 and Cherokee. It is a fact that many of these pilots no longer possess the skills they had to demonstrate on their PPL checkride, and therefore should not be carrying passengers. Yes, I hold them in contempt - because I take the time to learn my airplane and feel that no matter how "good" I think I am, I'm never going to be "good enough" - while many other pilots are satisfied with simply making it to the next pancake breakfast. If you identify yourself with this group, and place me on a "high horse", so be it.

Sort of. You're not going to put a "competent" Ercoupe, F-16 or 747 driver in a Hiperbipe, Eagle or Pitts without essentially starting over. And it’s not because the biplanes are "difficult" - they're not... They simply require skills not needed in the other aircraft.

And also let’s not forget the fact that we are really running out of "good" instructors. We have spawned multiple generations of kids who have never flown anything other than the "Land-O-Matic" trainers, and don't have a clue. This is partly institutional (FAA), and partly because many people take the easy way out when given the chance. Why learn rudder use or stalls when you don't have to?

So it all really boils down to two distinct opinions based on individual bias - those that thrive on a challenge, and those that have to be spoon fed all the way through. Neither is any more valid than the other. We might as well discuss whether blue is “better” than red.

Need a "like" button.
 
split it up between aircraft

There is a lot she can learn about navigation, airspace, and all the other "how to share the sky" stuff she can get from you in your 6. This can help keep the cost down. I worked with a student and instructor to help one of my friends get his licence this way. The minimum 20 hours logged dual might be possible this way. One does't have to log (dual) time to learn.
 
If Cost Is a Decision Consideration...

You should (as should everyone that suggested train in the -6) check to see if insurance is available for your aircraft while it is operated by a "student pilot". I think you will find that there is no insurance available (and if it is the annual premium will approximate the cost of your panel modification). When I finished my -8 in 1999 I could not get insurance until I had completed 5 hours dual with an instructor (even though I had Citabria, Cessna, Cherokee, etc. (250 or so hours)).

As far as military training is concerned there is no comparison. (I have gone through "back seater" training so do not have direct experience, but darn close. I also obtained my PPL while in VT-86 (advanced NFO training).) There is no doubt that a properly motivated person can deal with higher performance aircraft...the guys I went through AOCS with went directly to the T-28 for their primary aircraft. But the biggest difference here is that my classmates absolutely knew that their chosen career was in jeopardy if they failed to know the things they were required to know. We had studied aeronautics, basic navigation and other aviation related topics (weather, primary systems) for weeks in AOCS. When those guys went to primary flight training, they spent day upon day studying the aircraft and aircraft procedures BEFORE their first minute in the cockpit. (And also recall that at the end of AOCS there were only about half of the guys that started. The ones that finished were motivated!) I should also add, because this is important to flying, our "hand - eye" coordination was extensively tested during AOCS by the Naval Aerospace Medical Institute (NAMI). (If you don't have good coordination, consider a low performance airplane permanently. You might be able to improve your coordination with a simulator?)

We had the equivalent of about a 3 month (full time) ground school (and motivation) before we ever saw the inside of a cockpit.

The airplane that my class mates skipped was the T-34B (I think, but it certainly wasn't the C). That is the equivalent of a Bonanza and I would equate that to performance comparable to a -6 (without retractable gear). So, a Bonanza would be OK with 2 qualifications...3 months full time ground school and loss of chosen career if you fail. (I think, by definition, a Bonanza is a "high performance" aircraft...constant speed prop and retractable gear.)

I agree with Louise. But if you got cash for insurance, motivation and a willingness to endure months of ground school....go with the performance airplane (I won't say "high" because there are higher performing airplanes). (I can't afford a HIGH PERFORMANCE airplane, but my -8 performs pretty well.)
 
Last edited:
Learning in an RV-6

The CAFE Foundations report on the RV-8 said that the airplane was so benign it might make a good primary trainer. When this was mentioned to Van, he reportedly said the aileron configuration of the RV's eliminated the majority of rudder inputs needed for coordinated flight. He felt that made it a less good primary trainer. I think he's right. A number of students have learned to fly well in RV's, but they would face real and different challenges flying something like a cub and would need a good check-out for that I suspect.
 
??

The CAFE Foundations report on the RV-8 said that the airplane was so benign it might make a good primary trainer.

I don't see that the CAFE Foundation ever evaluated an RV-8. Do you have a copy of that evaluation?

(You may be quoting from the adverse yaw section of the RV-8A evaluation. I don't think the implication was that because the adverse yaw is not bad that it qualifies as a primary flight training aircraft. There are many other factors that enter into that evaluation. I also would guess that the added nose gear may contribute to the yaw stability, but that is just a guess.)
 
Last edited:
But if you got cash for insurance, motivation and a willingness to endure months of ground school....go with the performance airplane...

:confused: Months of ground school? Maybe the RVs you have experience with have more systems than an Airbus, but the ones I've seen are basic tin can airplanes, about as complex and difficult to fly as a Cherokee.

And let me state that like a Cherokee, I don't feel an RV is a very good trainer for basic stick and rudder skills.
 
I'd do that, but maybe ask Kent when the right time for that 5 hours is, and you might see if you can set her up with a slower taildragger for a few hours. Going from a DA-20 (remarkably low performance tricycle trainer) to an RV6 might be a lot to ask from am intimidation factor....though of she's ridden in your 6 a lot she'll be more used to the sensations at least (not seeing as well, more nose, more power, more speed, more climb rate...)


Thanks everyone for the input.

It may just be confirmation bias, but I think Louise has convinced me.

I think I'm going to start her off for a few hours in the Diamond with the instructor that got her excited about flying. Then after, say, 5 hours IF she wants to, fly her down to Mallard's and get her a few hours of dual in a 160hp, fixed pitch, relatively basic -6 with the guy who transitioned me. At that point we can make a decision on what direction to go. I think, given the history of fear, rocking the boat is the last thing I should do.

I'd love to be able to justify buying a low and slow, simple airplane, but I just dropped 16 g's on a new panel a year after buying the airplane. I'm feeling a tad depleted right now. :(
 
180 Cherokee is nothing close to a 6 w 160hp. At least I've been in em both many times. Mine has cs tho the Cherokee didn't

I agree with basics in something simple and stable. Easier to not have to be on top of the flying quite as much. If nothin else, she will appreciate the Rv after! Although diamonds are pretty nice

Question- would the Rv grin be as big if you had never known anything before it ? No way ! In my 150 I could sing a song, sip a soda and check the weather again from wot to take off :)
 
180 Cherokee is nothing close to a 6 w 160hp. At least I've been in em both many times. Mine has cs tho the Cherokee didn't
I agree with basics in something simple and stable.
Question- would the Rv grin be as big if you had never known anything before it ? No way ! In my 150 I could sing a song, sip a soda and check the weather again from wot to take off :)

I agree with Eric. I've owned all PA-28 models up to the 235(a great heavy hauler there). But a RV 6 will outclass all the Cherokee models. Even a light PA28-180. All things being equal- If a PA28-180 tangles with a RV6-160HP: The 6 pilot will be drinking shots at the OC and the PA28 would be a smoking hole :D
 
You're absolutely right. It was the RV-8A. Flight characteristics of the two are very similar however and I think Van's comment applies to both airplanes. I'll try to find the quote for you.

Bill
 
Back
Top