Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV-6 vs North American T6
- Thread starter fbrewer
- Start date
Not even close
Try 55 GPH full power full rich. 20 GPH leaned out training cruise.
T6 Harvards feel like an overloaded gravel truck on a soft wet road for handling, I have not touched one for 15 years but that is the way I remember them. Big, rude, crude, hot and noisy.
What made them a good trainer is they are like a C150(under powered /overweight) . with retractable landing gear, a hydraulic system, and a CS prop.
They demand that you pay attention and fly them coordinated, and they punish mistakes.
If you could fly fast circuits solo in the back seat of a T6 you were ready for a Mustang or Spit.
The RV is a light joyous delight and won't keep you in the poor house buying fuel and maint. and insurance.
Try 55 GPH full power full rich. 20 GPH leaned out training cruise.
T6 Harvards feel like an overloaded gravel truck on a soft wet road for handling, I have not touched one for 15 years but that is the way I remember them. Big, rude, crude, hot and noisy.
What made them a good trainer is they are like a C150(under powered /overweight) . with retractable landing gear, a hydraulic system, and a CS prop.
They demand that you pay attention and fly them coordinated, and they punish mistakes.
If you could fly fast circuits solo in the back seat of a T6 you were ready for a Mustang or Spit.
The RV is a light joyous delight and won't keep you in the poor house buying fuel and maint. and insurance.
Last edited:
N941WR
Legacy Member
While the T6 is light on the controls (two fingers), the RV is a one finger plane.
It is kind of like the difference between a C7 Corvette and a Lotus Elise (or Exige).
While the C7 is a good car, nothing accelerates, brakes, and turns in like a Lotus. It is all about power to weight.
(My first RV ride was jumping out of the back seat of a T6 and into the RV-4 Purple Passion many years ago. While I loved flying the T6, the RV was something else.)
Before you take our word for it, see if there is an RV in your area and bum a ride.
It is kind of like the difference between a C7 Corvette and a Lotus Elise (or Exige).
While the C7 is a good car, nothing accelerates, brakes, and turns in like a Lotus. It is all about power to weight.
(My first RV ride was jumping out of the back seat of a T6 and into the RV-4 Purple Passion many years ago. While I loved flying the T6, the RV was something else.)
Before you take our word for it, see if there is an RV in your area and bum a ride.
Last edited:
Dbro172
Well Known Member
Try contacting PHunt here on the forums, he has an RV-6, RV-6A and a T6.
jbDC9
Well Known Member
So it sounds like you're an RV-6 pilot wondering about transitioning to the T-6? Try it, you'll like it!
While I'm not a high time T-6 driver (125 hrs in type), I disagree with these statements. The T-6 has two types of ailerons, "high rate" and "standard"; perhaps the comments above come from experience in a ship with "standard rate" ailerons? The one I fly has the high rate ailerons and is just a nice flying airplane, very responsive to the controls in all axis.
As far as being under powered... it's really not. Standard gross weight on an early AT-6A is 5300 lbs being pulled along by a 600 hp Pratt R-1340; power/weight ratio is 8.8 lbs/hp. My 1800 lb, 180 hp RV-8 is 10 lbs/hp. Or, compare the T-6 to a Cessna 310R or E55 Baron; they both weigh in at around 5400 lbs and have 570 hp... so in comparison, the T-6 has a better power to weight ratio than a 180 hp RV, a C-310 or Baron. It's a draggier airframe for sure what with the fat face radial engine, but I wouldn't call it underpowered.
The flying part is easy, but it's the ground handling that might get you; it has a fairly narrow gear track and a long tail with a good bit more mass than an RV. If the tail starts to come around, you gotta stop it quick with the rudder, right now. No lazy feet! Once you get the hang of the size/mass and how it affects ground handling, it ain't that bad. Most T-6s have tailwheel steering thru the rudder pedals with the stick held back; push the stick forward and the steering pin disengages to become full swivel. Navy SNJ types are full swivel but lockable tailwheels.
Landings... I always wake up and pay attention to those! I've landed in 12G17 kt crosswinds with it; not fun, but doable. Any more than that, then call me chicken! Three point landings? Also doable, but just not really a good time for me, so I wheel it on. Kinda like an RV-8 in that respect...
Bottom line; these things are just a hoot to fly! The sound, the smell, the oil smoke on startup... rumbling along on a nice evening with the canopy cracked open doing a few wingovers. Man. Now I wanna go fly it! It's true that it's a thirsty pig compared to an RV, sucking down 28-30 gph at normal cruise speeds. But, for me, it's not a daily flyer type machine, so the fuel burn only hurts for a little bit.
For a good read on the T-6, check this out this pilot report from Budd Davisson. That dude can write.
http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepT-6.html
While I'm not a high time T-6 driver (125 hrs in type), I disagree with these statements. The T-6 has two types of ailerons, "high rate" and "standard"; perhaps the comments above come from experience in a ship with "standard rate" ailerons? The one I fly has the high rate ailerons and is just a nice flying airplane, very responsive to the controls in all axis.
As far as being under powered... it's really not. Standard gross weight on an early AT-6A is 5300 lbs being pulled along by a 600 hp Pratt R-1340; power/weight ratio is 8.8 lbs/hp. My 1800 lb, 180 hp RV-8 is 10 lbs/hp. Or, compare the T-6 to a Cessna 310R or E55 Baron; they both weigh in at around 5400 lbs and have 570 hp... so in comparison, the T-6 has a better power to weight ratio than a 180 hp RV, a C-310 or Baron. It's a draggier airframe for sure what with the fat face radial engine, but I wouldn't call it underpowered.
The flying part is easy, but it's the ground handling that might get you; it has a fairly narrow gear track and a long tail with a good bit more mass than an RV. If the tail starts to come around, you gotta stop it quick with the rudder, right now. No lazy feet! Once you get the hang of the size/mass and how it affects ground handling, it ain't that bad. Most T-6s have tailwheel steering thru the rudder pedals with the stick held back; push the stick forward and the steering pin disengages to become full swivel. Navy SNJ types are full swivel but lockable tailwheels.
Landings... I always wake up and pay attention to those! I've landed in 12G17 kt crosswinds with it; not fun, but doable. Any more than that, then call me chicken! Three point landings? Also doable, but just not really a good time for me, so I wheel it on. Kinda like an RV-8 in that respect...
Bottom line; these things are just a hoot to fly! The sound, the smell, the oil smoke on startup... rumbling along on a nice evening with the canopy cracked open doing a few wingovers. Man. Now I wanna go fly it! It's true that it's a thirsty pig compared to an RV, sucking down 28-30 gph at normal cruise speeds. But, for me, it's not a daily flyer type machine, so the fuel burn only hurts for a little bit.
For a good read on the T-6, check this out this pilot report from Budd Davisson. That dude can write.
http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepT-6.html
Last edited:
Love the AT-6D
I just sold my AT-6D after two years and 200 hours of flying. In two words LOVED IT! The T-6 is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT experience flying than....just about anything. It is a big brute. And it must be watched and paid attention to always. Aerodynamics were in their infancy in the 1930?s and designs were made more by how they looked than any true performance engineering. The T-6 will bite and even kill you in the slow flight regime with a very unforgiving snap/stall at slow speed, ie turning final to land, that is eye watering and best practiced at altitude as it is unrecoverable down low. Takeoffs are easily mastered once you figure out the p-factor mass of that giant prop. Landings.....I discribed landing the T-6 like riding a rhinoceros- very exciting and happy it didn?t kill you. My friend in the back seat videoed the rudder pedals on landing one ride, I was shocked by the movements. In general stock brakes are inadequate but workable. I operated for two years out of a 3,100 x 30 foot strip.
All RV?s are EASY TO OWN, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN compared to a good T-6. I estimated my hourly cost at 4 x my RV-4 cost. And maintenance on a T-6 is constant. Oil cleanup is constant. Fuel flow is hard to get used to. On a typical XC you will use 26 gph at 155 mph. Faster a LOT MORE, slower a little less.
This all sounds negative and I guess it kinda is. BUT the feeling you get, the history, the souls that have been in that airplane.....it was worth it. Mine had the anti-servos connected and it flew with two fingers and very balanced. My prop was balanced and flew smoothly. With the stock fuel tanks I flew home from OSH to DFW with one fuel stop. Not bad.
If it?s an itch you must scratch, nous the time as gas is cheaper.....and trust me, the first time you solo that beast and start it as it snorts, pops and bangs to life...that $400 an hour will seem worth it.
It?s like flying your Grandpa?s Big Buick. Your RV is like driving a Honda Accord!
Tailwinds,
I just sold my AT-6D after two years and 200 hours of flying. In two words LOVED IT! The T-6 is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT experience flying than....just about anything. It is a big brute. And it must be watched and paid attention to always. Aerodynamics were in their infancy in the 1930?s and designs were made more by how they looked than any true performance engineering. The T-6 will bite and even kill you in the slow flight regime with a very unforgiving snap/stall at slow speed, ie turning final to land, that is eye watering and best practiced at altitude as it is unrecoverable down low. Takeoffs are easily mastered once you figure out the p-factor mass of that giant prop. Landings.....I discribed landing the T-6 like riding a rhinoceros- very exciting and happy it didn?t kill you. My friend in the back seat videoed the rudder pedals on landing one ride, I was shocked by the movements. In general stock brakes are inadequate but workable. I operated for two years out of a 3,100 x 30 foot strip.
All RV?s are EASY TO OWN, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN compared to a good T-6. I estimated my hourly cost at 4 x my RV-4 cost. And maintenance on a T-6 is constant. Oil cleanup is constant. Fuel flow is hard to get used to. On a typical XC you will use 26 gph at 155 mph. Faster a LOT MORE, slower a little less.
This all sounds negative and I guess it kinda is. BUT the feeling you get, the history, the souls that have been in that airplane.....it was worth it. Mine had the anti-servos connected and it flew with two fingers and very balanced. My prop was balanced and flew smoothly. With the stock fuel tanks I flew home from OSH to DFW with one fuel stop. Not bad.
If it?s an itch you must scratch, nous the time as gas is cheaper.....and trust me, the first time you solo that beast and start it as it snorts, pops and bangs to life...that $400 an hour will seem worth it.
It?s like flying your Grandpa?s Big Buick. Your RV is like driving a Honda Accord!
Tailwinds,
T 6 vs RV 6
Both great aircraft in their own way. Owned 3 T 6's, flown them since the 70's approx 1500 hours. Sold last T 6, 11 years ago bought RV 6. The T 6 more challenging, from ground handling perspective, as previously stated, due to gear geometry/weight and inertial of tail cone, if not diligent in maintaining directional control on take off and landing. The RV 6 much nicer ground handling. Easy transition from T 6 to RV 6, which is why the T 6 is such a great trainer. Similar to transitioning from T 6 to P 51, in terms of ground handling. Anyway, both relatively high performance aircraft and very reliable if properly maintained. If you get a chance to fly one, do so...you'll probably be impressed in the nice handling characteristics for large single engine aircraft. I know I was...
Randy
Both great aircraft in their own way. Owned 3 T 6's, flown them since the 70's approx 1500 hours. Sold last T 6, 11 years ago bought RV 6. The T 6 more challenging, from ground handling perspective, as previously stated, due to gear geometry/weight and inertial of tail cone, if not diligent in maintaining directional control on take off and landing. The RV 6 much nicer ground handling. Easy transition from T 6 to RV 6, which is why the T 6 is such a great trainer. Similar to transitioning from T 6 to P 51, in terms of ground handling. Anyway, both relatively high performance aircraft and very reliable if properly maintained. If you get a chance to fly one, do so...you'll probably be impressed in the nice handling characteristics for large single engine aircraft. I know I was...
Randy
