What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Another beating

M

Maj. Woody

Member
Hi Guys.
I just completed another flight in my trusty Cessna 150. I mostly love this plane but usually get beaten to death in rough air. I have been planning the purchase of a flying RV-4 and am wondering how the RV-4 will compare in similar conditions. I would guess how a plane behaves in rough air is a combination of it's gross weight and wing loading. My Cessna grosses out at 1,600 pounds. Should I expect the ride quality of an RV-4 to be better, worse or the same as in my 150?
Thanks!
Dom
 
Maj. Woody said:
Hi Guys.
I just completed another flight in my trusty Cessna 150. I mostly love this plane but usually get beaten to death in rough air. I have been planning the purchase of a flying RV-4 and am wondering how the RV-4 will compare in similar conditions. I would guess how a plane behaves in rough air is a combination of it's gross weight and wing loading. My Cessna grosses out at 1,600 pounds. Should I expect the ride quality of an RV-4 to be better, worse or the same as in my 150?
Thanks!
Dom
Click to expand...

As a general rule....the two-place RVs are a rough ride in turbulence. The bumps will be more abrupt and "harder/sharper" than in your C150.

Unlike the 150, the RV has instantaneous control authority that lets you immediately correct deviations from the bumps. Slowing down will improve the RV ride a little, but when the thermals are popping...tighten down the belts. :)
 
however, in the summertime thermals...

your option for getting above the turbulence level is hugely expanded because it doesn't take long to get up there in an RV. in a 150, by the time you get above the thermals it's time to come down - if you ever got there at all. your option to find most favorable winds is also more common.
 
Yep, what Sam said. My RV is the roughest riding plane I've been in. I've smacked the canopy pretty hard several times, but now I usually remember to tighten the belts if the ride seems headed that direction. My wife has never hit her head, but she hates flying so her belts are always sucked down tight.

Disclaimer...I don't have a lot of hours in much. 172, Citabria and a few Bonanza. I like the heavy Bo rocking around. Or the soft flex of the wood sparred Citabria
 
I scared myself a couple of weeks ago by whacking my head hard on the canopy on a day that generally wasn't that rough (it stunned me). For me also, it is the roughest riding airplane I have ever flown and I have a lot of Cessna 150/152 time. The high speed, low weight and low wing loading cause this and also cause many of the wonderful qualities of the airplane. Just one of the trade offs.

Slowing way way down helps a lot, but then you might as well be flying the Cessna 150.
 
Load the plane up

My 8A handles the bumps a lot better when it's loaded down with fuel and baggage.

Randy
8A
 
rv7charlie said:
Don't forget the upside: you won't need to endure the rough ride nearly as long. :)
Click to expand...

And don't forget the ability to clime to smoother air. RV pilots commonly climb to much higher altitudes (even for short flights) than you likely would in a C-150 (often times the 150 probably wouldn't even make it as high).
 
Good 5 point harnesses will really change the comfort level in turbulence. I've been in both 4 and 5 point, no comparison in turbulence. If you find an RV-4 with only 4 point, modify it for the crotch strap, and get the wide style of belts.
 
I have a lot of time in 172's & 152's and what I hate about them more than a rough ride is their roll tendancy in wind over the mountains. Do the RV's have this tendancy or are the tail waggers?
 
This was the result of a very bumpy, offshore wind day in SoCal. Straight and level, no aerobatics, on my to KSMO to meet my ladyfriend for lunch. Bumpy, but no issues.

IMG_0735_zps53da0d26.jpg


John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
I was just thinking about this today, did a flight from Minden Tahoe to Redding in the Sky hawk, it always gets rough on the edges of the lake, am I in for a more exciting ride in the 7?
 
I?ve been thinking the same (while I put my panel together) as a Archer Driver, I wonder what the 7 is going to be like and will it be as easy to drive in the Texas Summer (thermal H$!! in the mid day). I guess only time will tell.
 
Near 200 MPH and a light wing loading, they'll beat the heck out of ya!

I've had to slow down after a cold frontal passage, it was so rough.

Best,
 
Ronald Sutton said:
The neat thing about an RV4 is you can fly above it at 13,000 to 15,000 ft I do it all the time in Nevada;)
Click to expand...

Not very practical for the twenty minute breakfast run, especially when some of it is under Class C. ;)

I got into some rotors going into Moontown for breakfast last month (41kts @ 2000' blowing over the hills adjacent to the airport) that pounded me against the canopy multiple times. It was so bad I was seriously concerned about what would happen if the harness let go.....

Ordered a 5-point G-Force harness yesterday.
 
pilot28906 said:
I have a lot of time in 172's & 152's and what I hate about them more than a rough ride is their roll tendancy in wind over the mountains. Do the RV's have this tendancy or are the tail waggers?
Click to expand...

Yes, you must fly them. You really can't let go for long, especially in turbulence. That's the price you pay for a responsive a/c.

Charlie
 
Love my 7-A

I had a light experimental seaplane (Aventura II) for 10 years and i hated flying it in the chop. In turbulence the RV seams to just kind of jolt you. With my other plane, I was all over the place but then again, I was always flying about 500 to 1000ft AGL where the bumps are. Now I am up over the rough air quickly.
 
That was one nice thing about the ride in a Velocity that I liked. It seemed really stable in the rough north Texas summer air. Don't ask about take off distances or how long it takes to build though... :eek:

Bob
 
bret said:
Minden Tahoe to Redding in the Sky hawk, it always gets rough on the edges of the lake, am I in for a more exciting ride in the 7?
Click to expand...
Or course it will be more exciting, it's an RV.
But, not necessarily more bumpy. RV goes higher ... generally smoother.
One of last summer's trips to Tahoe due to work we didn't get our early morning start. Tail winds were 50-70 knots at 13.5. The ride was perfectly smooth. Wind at KTVL was 180 18G26. Stayed on the windward side of the ridge, headed out to the lake to descend. A couple of bumps on final. A different flight plan would have been a bumpy experience.
For a 9 not much difference in wing loading C172=13 lb/sqft RV9A=14.1 lb/sqft RV7A=14.8 lb/sqft. So the RV should be a little better ride...
 
RVs seem to ride rough, but for a really rough ride, try one of the carbon-fiber LSAs at light weight. Very stiff.

Solutions as others have mentioned:

* Fly heavy. Higher wing loading gives a smoother ride. I often carried water ballast in the CT to keep CG aft and weight up.
* Fly high. Thermal turbulence will be almost nil above the mixing layer. You can get this from any of the sounding charts or soaring forecasts. You can also get an idea of the strength of the thermals from the prediction of max lift (fpm).
* Slow down! Throttles work both ways. Flying at Va also means you are less likely to bend the airplane with full control inputs.

The point about 4 or 5 point harnesses are also good. The advantage of a 5 point is that you are held "into" the seat and are less likely to hit your head.

TODR
 
Not mine

My -10 handles turbulence substantially better than the -172 I learned to fly in. It's not just me, my wife (who is VERY sensitive to that sort of thing) has commented on it several times. Also, an experienced instructor I took flying also commented on it. Now, if I am cruising along at 170 ktas and life gets bumpy, I have to slow down, but I can almost always feel it coming and slowing down or changing altitudes almost always improves things. The RV-10 wing loading is 18.6 #/sf, whereas the wing loading on the -172 is about 11-12, as I recall. That could explain it. You might need a -10 :)
 
My old plane, the Aeronca Sedan, had a wing loading of 9.47 so my 9 is way better. Having said that, I hit my head for the first time on Tuesday. I got in some rotors not too far from my home airport at 1500' and man, I was slammed! I have to say, that was probably one of the worst rides I've ever had. I did slow down and got out of it pretty quickly.

I have to say though, even though it was very rough, I think it handled it better than my Sedan would have. Flying the Sedan was like flying a leaf. It was all over the place in turbulence and it took a while to get out of it.

Being able to get above it or around it quickly in the the RV is wonderful.
 
About to buy a set of crow harnesses

For the guys with good harnesses, do you recommend the 2 or 3 inch width? Do you believe it makes much of a difference? I was about to purchase a set and wanted some last minute feedback before I do. Thanks
 
RVZoomie said:
For the guys with good harnesses, do you recommend the 2 or 3 inch width? Do you believe it makes much of a difference? I was about to purchase a set and wanted some last minute feedback before I do. Thanks
Click to expand...

I like my 2" Crows just fine. Do a search. I think most people get the 2".
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
RVs seem to ride rough, but for a really rough ride, try one of the carbon-fiber LSAs at light weight. Very stiff
Click to expand...

Airframe material makes a big difference! I've flown a carbon wing Berkut and it was the stiffest structure I've ever seen. Turbulence in the Berkut was awful but in my LongEZ it's okay (but still stiff). Same basic airframe with the Berkut a bit heavier due to the retractable gear but the LongEZ has a glass, not carbon wing. I'm hoping the 14 will be comparable to my EZ in rough air ride.
 
The -9 rides a bit better in the bumps. I have been test flying one so I'm jumping out of a -6, into a -9, then back into the -6. Very noticeable difference.
 
If you fly inverted you won't hit your head as hard.:)

If you fly inverted through the turbulence you won't hit your head as hard.:)
 
Bumpier?

I went from a 150 Aerobat to my 6. The power and performance at my disposal now is incomparable. As for bumps, you are changing the blender setting from "chop" to "Puree."
 
ExtraKatana said:
I went from a 150 Aerobat to my 6. The power and performance at my disposal now is incomparable. As for bumps, you are changing the blender setting from "chop" to "Puree."
Click to expand...

That was the great thing about flying Huey's for my Uncle. It took the big bumps and "chopped" them up into little pieces. Made it pretty tolerable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top