What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-4 PIREP: Cam Benton (part II)

admin

Active Member
...continued from part I

IFR Platform

Everything I?ve read tries to steer RV owners away from using their planes while under IFR. I got my instrument rating in my Cardinal and am partial to it under those conditions. It is excellent in IMC. I?ve now flown about 45 minutes actual IMC in the RV4. I?ve not shot an approach with it. So far, I?ve found it to be a great IFR plane. I don?t have an autopilot in it yet, but it is stable and easy to control. The good performance allows me to stay on (or quickly get back to) assignment. I can slow it down in order to stay ahead of it. (This alone gets IFR pilots in trouble. They?re afraid to slow down in IMC, yet they probably need to.)

The RV4 doesn?t allow much room for charts, so I use a kneeboard and notes to keep me ahead. Charts are within reach at my right elbow. I would rather fly IMC in my Cardinal, but I?m confident in the RV4. I don?t agree that the RV planes are not good instrument platforms, but I understand why many might feel this way. I do think these conditions could quickly get too demanding in the soup for many pilots. But with proper training and currency, I think the RVs can be excellent IFR planes. However, if the flight called for anything more than getting through a layer, I would choose to fly my Cardinal.

Best in Category ? Cardinal
Second ? RV4

Aerobatics

I haven?t broken out the full bag of tricks in the RV4 yet. I have done rolls, wing-overs, stalls, spins and high G pull ups in it. I have not done full loops, Immelmans, half Cubans, hammerheads, avalanche, and such. Once I get some recurrent instruction and a parachute I?ll work on these.

The 4 is excellent at rolling and sky dancing. With music on there?s not much better in life. In fact, this is worth the price of admission for me.

The RV4 requires an extremely high nose up pitch to stall prior to entering a spin. Pro-spin controls must be fully held to get it to enter a spin. Once it spins, one can feel it ?bang around? for the first time. It wants to straighten out and is telling you to let it. It is not an uncomfortable feeling, just the plane communicating back that something is amiss. Multiple turns are comfortable and seem slower turning than in my Cardinal. When opposite rudder is applied the RV wants to continue the spin rather than pop out immediately. Not until back elevator is neutralized does the spin stop. By comparison, the Cardinal and the Decathlon will pop right out once top rudder is given. A secondary stall will occur right then if the yoke/stick isn?t moved forward, but the spin is over.

To be fair the RV also is quick to recover from the spin. In fact, just let go of everything and it will probably stop spinning, but I haven?t tried this. I?ve got more notes to take regarding spins, but so far I?m filled with confidence about spinning the RV4. However, speed will build quickly in this plane and true vertical attitude after a spin is probably not advisable. The Decathlon would be my choice for this.

Best in Category ? Extra 300 L
Second ? Super Decathlon
Third ? RV4

Landings

All I can say is, ?What a blast!? The RV approach is different than anything else I?ve done while landing. Downwind ? tight; Speed ? slow to 85 knots; Power ? idle; Flaps ? full; Base and Final ? blended into one grace full maneuver; Sight picture ? nose low; Line up ? happy feet; Let it happen ? don?t make it happen; Fly it on; Greaser!

It is an extremely easy to land airplane? once I let it teach me how it wanted to land. I love landings in the 4! I would rather land this plane than any other plane I?ve flown. That sounds like I?m anxious to get out ? I?m not. I just love landing the RV4. It lands as nicely as it takes off. I can feel it taking care of me. Is it alive?

Best in Category - RV4

Overall

Can you tell I love this machine? Let?s see. After a six hour XC trip I didn?t want to stop flying. I can?t say that about my Cardinal and it?s got a relatively huge cabin. Everyone I?ve given RV4 rides to loves it, and lets out at least one belly laugh during the flight. It looks good on the ramp and flies well. It?s fast and slow if I want it to be. It?s stable and responsive. It?s STOL and XC capable.

I loved all the planes I?ve flown - just differently. In my perfect world I would have a big, new, sealed, and painted hangar. In this hangar you would find a high wing representative in the form of a 1968 Cardinal with tuned exhaust. This would cover training and people transport, IFR and be my only trike gear plane. Obviously, there would be an Extra 300L for aerobatic duty. The bush plane would be a TD Maule with tundra tires because it can haul a lot and takeoff and land short. Front and center would be the RV4.

Since the world is not perfect and funds, unlike the imagination, are limited, the real picture will look slightly different. I?m sure however, the RV4 will remain front and center. The RV4 is the best mix of all the qualities and actually shares duty with all the planes I?ve mentioned. That?s a remarkable statement when one considers the list of planes it has pulled in front of!

Best in Category - RV4
 
Hear, hear! I concur completely. The RV-4 has got to be the esiest landing taildragger ever! Great writeup.
 
Thanks, I didn't know it would be posted on Rick's site and VAF. I might have sparkled it up a bit had I expected that, but... what the heck. Just one guy's opinion anyway.
 
My Dos Centavos...

OK, if we're going to post opinions, here's my ever so humble 2 cents worth from somebody with a couple of RV4 hours...

RV-4 Pirep: Epilogue

I started building my RV4 in 1989 in Japan while stationed there. I had never seen an RV (except in a magazine)yet bought the RV4 tail kit sight unseen. I finished the RV4 in 1996 after many USAF moves, trials tribulations and setbacks. The support network that now exists wasn't there yet.( There were barely 500 flying RV's when I bought my empennage kit., Internet, what's that?) My test flight was my first RV flight, however, I had alot of lightplane experience and 3000+ tailwheel hours.

Here is my highly biased impressions/comparisons of airplanes I have had the opportunity/blessing to fly.

Ramp appeal:

1. F-16C wins hands down, best looking airplane on the planet (I'm biased) and correct number of seats.(1) OK, you can't build one (well maybe?) but I had to list it..
2.Harmon Rocket 2 (RV4 on steroids, better looking,not as boxy as the 8)
4. RV4
Distant 4th.. All other RV's...especially A's (grumman look-alikes)!

Cockpit: Get in, sit down, strap it on and woo hoo! Questions? (Cam, a reverse push-up on the canopy rails while lowering yourself in is the preferred option).
1. F16
2. HR2
3.RV4
Takeoff:
1.F-16C Block 30 (clean, no external tanks or stores) The absolutely best thrill on the planet with seeing your kids born and sex a distant second and third...60,000 pph fuel flow on takeoff, 27,500 lbs of thrust/25,000 takeoff weight. Do the math, >1:1 dude! Accelerate to 350 KIAS by the end of the runway and pull back to 90 degrees nose high, you will see 250 IAS knots going through 20,000 feet...can you say woo hoo? Even with 2 X 2000 lb JDAM bombs, 2 X A-120 missiles, 2 X 370 gallon external fuel tanks and a big lunch (combat missions are 6+ hours now) it will climb at 400 knots to 20,000' at a 45 degree angle!
2. T-38 not bad for a trainer..
3. Harmon Rocket 2... 300 HP RV4...questions? 3000 fpm intial climb, 200 knots cruise...
4. RV4, all engines, props, whatever...awesome.
Utility:

OK, you have to define the mission:

Combat: Air to everything: Air, Ground, Sea, whatever
1. F16
2. F18
3.F15E
4. SU-27
5. RV4 (in a pinch)

F22: yet to be proven but could make all of the above pale in comparison.
Flying:
Backwoods, low and slow, landing shorter than 1000'.(smooth surface)

1. Super Cub
2. Light RV-4 (yep, lots of times)
3. Scout
4. Arctic Tern
5. Husky

IFR: In civilian lightplanes...? Why Cam? I started my career in lightplanes and spent alot of scary nights flying around the SE USA working for fly-by-night (literally)outfits back in the day. However, if you have to pick a lightplane I thought the Cessna 310 was pretty nice in the goo. Two engines in the goo over swamps or mountains buys you options when one fan quits, at least for a little while. The other 2 birds on the list (non-turbine) flew nice IMC too. The endearing question is why thrash around in the goo (which where I live means T-storms) in an airplane I built in my garage, no weather radar? Ever been vectored into an imbedded boomer at night IMC without a WX radar? I have, it isn't fun. If you must, the RV4 needs an autopilot so you can look away once in awhile. I built mine VMC so I can enjoy just flying...period.

1. C-310
2. Aerostar
3. Navajo

Most Bang (and I mean pure FUN bang)for personal (not taxpayer) Bucks.
1. RV4 (amen brother, ain't no question)
2. RV3 (too close to call, RV4 with no witnesses)
3. Pitts S-1(best 20K you can spend)
4. One Design (poor mans extra 300)
5. HR2 (most airplane of the above but most spendy$$)

I have to agree with you, the RV4 tops my list for best of category period dot. Believe it or not, the Harmon Rocket is even better in most categories. Both are great all-around "do fun things" airplanes. My bottom line is I can afford to own my own cool airplane (the RV4) I built myself in my home and fly anytime I want doing alot of cool stuff. Is this a great country or what?
Great Pirep..
Seeya!

Rob Ray
 
Last edited:
I've heard Smoky's sentiment in every single military pilot I've talk with about civilian instrument flights. "IMC is for heavy iron. Little put-puts can do it, but why?"

In reality single engine, single pilot IMC is done often and within reason, safely. Althout it is not the safest aspect of flying, it can and often is "done anyway" for very practical reasons like getting home.

IFR does not mean IMC. For those who are not instrument pilots, "IFR" only referes to additional equipement and proceedures over VFR. IMC means flying in the clouds. They are not the same thing. If I am capable, I will always file IFR for a cross country; even if it's clear and a million. Paradoxically, once you understand "the system", the overall trip is simpler under IFR regulations.

I think the general concensis on IFR equiped RV-4's is that IMC should be minimized. It just doesn't have the hardware to support extended flights in IMC. Do you have two comm's, two vor's, two transponders, truelly redundant (with seperate types of power sources) attitude instrumentation? I'm not talking aboutPart 91.205 required equipement.
I'm mean real-world redundancy and capability. Add to that that the rear seat can't possibly take the stick in IMC, it's pretty simple. RV-4 is either inadiquate or overweight for the mission, take your pick.

We in the RV community have this kind of discussion frequently about our RVs. "Why an RV isn't good at one particular aspect or another". Weather that discussion is about banner towing, aerobatics or IFR. I think we have the discussion because the plane can almost do all of them well enough. It's a jack of all trades airplane that's a master at nothing, except fun! So go out and fly it that way!

Bruce Meacham
CFII / MEI
RV-4 254MM heading to the airport this week
RV-3 6years
 
How did this digress into a discussions of F16s and IFR platforms?? Rick just wanted to know what I thought of it compared to other planes I've flown. Which I thought was a very insightful question. Thanks, Rick.
 
My choice.

This just confirms to me that I did pick the best RV kit to build and hopefully will be flying next year if all goes well.
 
admin said:
[snipped, re: spin recover]A secondary stall will occur right then if the yoke/stick isn?t moved forward, but the spin is over.

I think it's related to the high stalling AoA of the stubby wing, but I found something about the RV really loves to secondary. And pretty abruptly too. Doesn't it kinda feel like it's flying well before fully normalized airflow is restored to the wings? That was how I felt it anyway. It took a concerted effort to really unload it to get it to fly again. This is important to note if you are trying to force a spin-recovery. I recall having to be gentle on the initial recover till you have good airspeed.

-Bruce
 
RV-4 IMC

The best money I have spent on my RV-4 is a TruTrak autopilot. I have the model that is a wing leveler, hdg hold, gps track. It is great just for VMC x-countries. I think it would be a must for IMC.

I too have flown single engine jets in the military that don't have any type of autopilot (T-33) and I can tell you if you aren't totally prepared for IMC operation on the ground before you takeoff, you will be really behind the airplane in the air. The same thing would apply in an Rv-4 or 8. My two cents! :)
 
Apples and Oranges...

Cam,

Actually the discussion came from your excellent comparison of the flying qualities of the RV4 versus all of the airplanes you have flown. I simply added my own comparison of the RV4 to others I have flown. Your own statement about IFR capabilities and comparisons with your Cardinal is where the comparison arose.
I think the discussion is noteworthy as lower time pilots building RV's who have less IMC experience may be led into believing the RV4 is a "see all, do all" magic airplane for every purpose. As Bruce so eloquently stated, it is a "wonderful compromise airplane, go have fun!" Having built one, flown it for 12 years and flown alot of others, I agree. That's why I built one and encourage others to build or buy one. Within the design limitations it is a wonderful lttle airplane that will put a grin on your face every flight if you let it.
Your comparison simply showed a very honest and well written flying qualities report of what the rest of us RV4 types have been saying for years. You can bolt on a $20,000 EFIS panel, autopilot, 200HP engine and C/S prop and have a gazillion bucks tied up and go all over the country IFR if you want to. However, flying single pilot hard IFR/IMC in real weather is not what I believe Van intended the airplane to do. Even the builders manual has this quote "Keep it light, keep it simple!"
I agree with you Cam, the RV4 rocks, mine has 1400 hours all flown by me, I must like it! Since your report was posted here by Doug, we all were admiring it and making comments about some valid points. Maybe some of the builders out there can glean some information and some motivation from it as well. After all, that's what this site is all about. Personally I try to motivate RV4 builders by taking them up, looking outside of that big canopy and enjoying the view...upside down is my favorite..

RR

PS: Scott, how do you know if the RV4 is better than the F16 if you've never flown one? C'mon down, I'll show you how to start it, after that, you're on your own...woo hoo! :)
 
smokyray said:
Cam,
PS: Scott, how do you know if the RV4 is better than the F16 if you've never flown one? C'mon down, I'll show you how to start it, after that, you're on your own...woo hoo! :)

I'm there! Just be sure to show me where the buttons marked "KEEP PILOT FROM PASSING OUT" and "MAKE NICE, GENTLE LANDING" are. Then I'll be all set! If your F-16 has not had the firmware upgrades added and the buttons installed, then no deal. I'll just stick to the -4 thank you.

Actually ANY airplane that you can fly and don't have to pay for the gas, is the BEST airplane.
;)
 
Under appreciated.....

One aspect of this airplane that I feel is not appreciated is the fact that an o-320 wood prop airplane is very mainstream in the RV4 world. That means that all that fun can be built or bought for $40-$50k. You will have an airplane that will burn 8gph and have annuals like a cub.

If there's any future in aviation for the non-wealthy. It's right here. Any two guys who can afford any reasonable toy (motorcyle,boat whatever) can get together and get themselves an RV4.

This is not necessarily true for the rest of Van's lineup. It is notable that many of the newer models are costing (to build) and selling for around $100k.
$100k is still real money where I come from :)

Anyway, when we total up "performance", let's not forget maintenance cost, fuel burn, and the lack of aggravation that goes with maintaining a simple airplane. They don't get much simpler than a mainstream RV4....

Amen and Hallelujah !!

John
 
Gotcha, RR. Maybe we all are preaching to the choir here but...

If I really try to be unbiased and objectively look at all the RV4 does well, I realize it really is a remarkable machine. Duty for duty, it can answer the call across the board. In fact, if we constructed a "duty envelope" for ASEL type planes, the RV4 would sit right in the box with plenty of room to spare. Most specialty planes that would outperform it in certain categories or missions, would bust the envelope as soon as the the mission changed.

Well, I gotta go. SmokyRay has about 100 times as many hours in his RV as I do...
 
Smokey:

I've noticed that you really like the HR to the point that you like it more than the -4's as a sport AC. A guy that I fly with went from a 180HP -4 to a rocket (F1 actually). With the RV4 he was very good at ACM, with the F1 he was dead meat in a turning fight (heavy plane, short wing) He'd do well in an energy fight but he thought that was boring. In the end he sold the F1 and is looking for a sweet -4.

Seems to me an 0390, extended tanks, sam james cowl, with maybe a light CS prop (maybe VG's if you like ACM) would be a *very* nice -4 if you were modest on the bubba scale.
 
On Rick Gray's site there was an interesting discussion of my use of flaps on takeoff. I use flaps as a tool and the tool depends on the job. Thought it might fit here so here's my reply from that discussion...

"Sorry, I'm late on the thread. Solo I usually leave the flaps up. With a passenger or when loaded I'll add 10 degrees. I guess I could go more, but that seems to be enough. Rich Stowell in Santa Paula (EMT fame) taught me a lot about flaps. Up to about 20 degrees they create more lift than drag. More than half flaps, and the drag, which increases exponentially, offsets the gain given by the extra lift. That's why most POHs want you to retract to half flaps on a go around.

This was driven home to me when we did a full flap exercise in my Cardinal. Rich had me put in full flaps, which is about 40 degrees. Then he had me push yoke forward - hard. I was trying to dive to build speed, but the drag wouldn't let me get out of the white arc. The lesson?... one doesn't need to slip with full flaps because the drag is so great. Just dive for the deck and the flaps will "drag" you down. Pretty cool.

I think there's a lesson in this also when it comes to takeoffs. Too much of a good thing usually isn't, and more than half flaps on TO probably is counter productive."
 
Flaps in the fight...

Cam,

Several years ago I too had the same question about flaps on takeoff as I have manual flaps and kept my airplane at a non-charted 980' strip. The strip had no obstructions on one end and is one way in, one way out. No problem for a -4 but I was experimenting with 1 notch of flaps for takeoff and not seeing much change. I even tried my old Cessna 140 trick of "popping" full flaps after starting the takeoff roll but that too didn't seem to change it much. So, next Sun N Fun, I asked Van himself several questions and one concerned flaps on takeoff. Van's quote included some aerodynamic gobbledegook that 3 brain cell fighter pilots like me can't fathom. However, Van explained in no uncertain terms that the wing area and angle of incidence are critical in takeoff performance along with external variables such as density altitude, slope, t/o weight etc..With lower wing area the drag of flaps outweighs much of the lift advantage, therefore, little difference. He also explained that a full flap takeoff may initially get you off slightly sooner but reduce your overall initial climb and extend your critical field length clearance over an obstacle.
In my experience the best short field RV4's are the long gear airplanes. Mine would get airborne sooner if I could raise the nose 5 degrees on the takeoff roll, ie...long gear. My technique coming out of the short strip was always the same, full throttle, stay in 3 point (normally I raise the tail) and leave my flaps up. When it gets light it will fly off on it's own and do the RV4 "leap" from 60-100mph and start smokin upward!
The VG guys like Larry Vetterman and Bob Olds tell me they really help in this department and both of them built RV4's when I was in college! Their advice and opinions mean alot especially since Bob's home strip is less than 800' usable. (I landed there, once!) In my opinion VG's "ugly" up the wing but it's all about utility, right... well, maybe.
I guess all my babbling leads to the answer that my airplane always jumps off in 400 feet on the rough short strip with a wood prop, 0-320 and just me in it. Even with a passenger it gets out of that strip with 300-400 feet leftover, an amazing feat for such a small airplane. More choir preaching I know...

RR

PS: About the Rocket, yes it does alot of things better but is more expensive and burns more gas. Dogfighting as in alot of airplanes (and dogs), depends on who the dogs are in the fight. I tangled with my good buddy Mark "Slim" Culpepper in his HR2 last spring and he is a fellow F16 guy (who I have fought in the F16 too) and an outstanding pilot.
Slim had the advantage of seeing me first and getting the initial turn. I reacted with a 3.5G break turn into him putting him in lag. The RV4's initial turn rate was easily matched by Slim and he maintained more energy throughout (HP!). I used every trick I know in the Bandit including flaps, stall-turn half departures and rate fights. Slim was able to keep me at bay by exploiting the vertical explicitly. Every time I got an advantage he would climb away or park his nose vertical and climb straight up. He could also run away...A light, well flown Rocket would be a match for most any RV4 out there including a light IO-340 WW prop -4. The Rocket is a wonderful airplane, like dating a fashion model, expensive, great handling, great to be seen with but high maintenence and go through $$$ quicker. But boy are they fun...
I'll keep my RV4 thank you..

RR

Slim and I...
my.php
[/URL][/IMG]
 
Follow up

After a few years and a few more hundred hours, I love my -4 as much as Smokey. I've raced it. I've flown formation with it. I've XC'd in it extensively. I'm on a mission to land in all lower 48 states with it... I'm still fulfilling that one..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_YPZ_7hrOU&feature=channel_page

My wife and kids all love it. It has provided incredible memories that are well worth the price of admission. I've flown -6s and -7s and they just don't fly like my -4. They are great, but the -4 is different. I wouldn't take for it.

It finally is time for a new panel. The GRT EFIS is on a FedEx plane (or Truck) right now. This loyal bird has earned it.
 
Rv4 users

Thanks to all you great folks, I am working on tail feathers on an older "4" kit.
Horizontal,vertical stabilizer done except for fiberglass tips,rudder almost
done and some fair progress on elevators.
The encouragement from all is great,but I consume everything about
the "4".........
 
Back
Top