What are the capabilities of the RV series on short, unimproved strips?

The performance spec's show a 3-500 feet take off and landing distance. Have you ever seen one with the pants off and slightly bigger tires?

Is there a reason that you don't? 

There is always trade offs in various aircraft. But look at the RV series....Fast cruise on small to moderate fuel burn AND fairly short takeoff and landing. These two don't always go well together. Plus, you can flip her upside down if you want.

Could you put big tires on one?

Any high wing drivers that want to simply say "the wing is in the wrong place" don't need to respond. There is plenty of Cherokee sixes working the bush.
Cheers

Paul

There have been other threads on this subject, but the weak points are the gear legs.

While not an RV pilot, I am building an airplane with a similar landing gear configuration. I've looked at the RV a LOT, and these are my thoughts;
There are a few that have put slightly oversized tires on the RV series, and for the record, all of these opinions are for the tail low RV's, the A models are not really suitable for rough field work, so just don't. The tapered rod gear on the RV is flexible, and forgiving. I would be considerate to the gear when landing off airport, and avoid really plopping the plane in for the really short strips. That might exclude some of the shorter strips. The plane is very responsive, and a very good performer for takeoff and landings, coming up shorter than most anything that compares to its flying abilities. While I have not seen any on what I would call a truly 'rough' strip, I have seen many fly into and out of turf strips of various quality, and all seemed to do well. I think the larger engine would be a benefit for departures, but the 320 powered craft are no slouches. A constant speed prop can be an effective airprake for the short approaches. They do build speed quickly if you don't pay attention. the flaps are fairly low to the ground, when compared to a Cherokee, or the like, but not by too much. The tailwheel is small, but being experimental, that can be easily fixed.
I'd suspect that the reason that you don't see bigger tires on them is just the type of pilot that builds/buys one is not into the off field thing. It would definitely look odd with ABW's! There is an RV on floats, and that turned out beautifully.

Hafast wrote:There have been other threads on this subject, but the weak points are the gear legs.

I searched before posting, might have missed it.

tejasflyer wrote:While not an RV pilot, I am building an airplane with a similar landing gear configuration. I've looked at the RV a LOT, and these are my thoughts;
There are a few that have put slightly oversized tires on the RV series, and for the record, all of these opinions are for the tail low RV's, the A models are not really suitable for rough field work, so just don't. The tapered rod gear on the RV is flexible, and forgiving. I would be considerate to the gear when landing off airport, and avoid really plopping the plane in for the really short strips. That might exclude some of the shorter strips. The plane is very responsive, and a very good performer for takeoff and landings, coming up shorter than most anything that compares to its flying abilities. While I have not seen any on what I would call a truly 'rough' strip, I have seen many fly into and out of turf strips of various quality, and all seemed to do well. I think the larger engine would be a benefit for departures, but the 320 powered craft are no slouches. A constant speed prop can be an effective airprake for the short approaches. They do build speed quickly if you don't pay attention. the flaps are fairly low to the ground, when compared to a Cherokee, or the like, but not by too much. The tailwheel is small, but being experimental, that can be easily fixed.
I'd suspect that the reason that you don't see bigger tires on them is just the type of pilot that builds/buys one is not into the off field thing. It would definitely look odd with ABW's! There is an RV on floats, and that turned out beautifully.

Great info.

So the gear is a factor. Good to know.

Would you be surprised to see one at mile high?

Vitz

I sold my RV-4 because I just didn't feel comfortable taking it into the places I want to take my Coyote. That's the whole reason I got rid of the -4 and built the Coyote. I just couldn't see balling up my -4 just to see if I could get it into this strip or that. But that's just me.
I

svanarts wrote:I sold my RV-4 because I just didn't feel comfortable taking it into the places I want to take my Coyote. That's the whole reason I got rid of the -4 and built the Coyote. I just couldn't see balling up my -4 just to see if I could get it into this strip or that. But that's just me.
I

What makes you more comfortable in the coyote? Is it the stall/approach speed, is it that much slower in the coyote?

The flap clearance when down must be minimal.

And I agree completely, this discussion does not include the nose draggers. Should there even be any nose draggers any way. I guess, if that's what it takes to sell more airplanes.

I would think a RV8 with a set of 31 inch BushWheels at low pressure would take most of the bumps out of the rough strips and "save" the gear??

I'm in the process of replacing motor mount on my 6 because of cracks in mount, I took it into a lot of not rough strips but not smooth gravel and grass .
180 and constant speed was off the ground in no time, great performer, but building a Glastar now.
Putting a 150 and fixed in it abd putting the 180 in the Glastar
Of course if someone landed it a little more gently than I did most of the time it wouldn't need it!?!?
GT

here's a video of a friends RV9 off airport.

http://vimeo.com/3679811

I guess we need to define Airport???
Does that mean not paved?
I thought that meant if it had a track down it and was called an airstrip, it was an airport?
I always thought off airport meant it was not an Airport or Airstrip.
I have a grass strip down the middle of my alfalfa field, I figure that's an airstrip??
Whats the consensus out there?
Maybe a hole new thread
GT

M6RV6 wrote:I guess we need to define Airport???
Does that mean not paved?
I thought that meant if it had a track down it and was called an airstrip, it was an airport?
I always thought off airport meant it was not an Airport or Airstrip.
I have a grass strip down the middle of my alfalfa field, I figure that's an airstrip??
Whats the consensus out there?
Maybe a hole new thread
GT

I see your point, I should have been a little more descriptive.

What I meant was not even neccesarily off airport. For the purpose of this discussion, how about the strips in the idaho backcountry.....Dewey Moore? Mile High? Fish Lake?

Is there any other airplane that can do 160 knots and get in and out of strips as well as the RV's?

Cheers

I owned an RV-3 once, great fun and great capability. But it never struck me as being really appropriate for rough field stuff. They will operate out of short fields fairly well, but likely not be great on rough strips. Not a lot of propeller clearance on mine, don't know about the other models. Trailing edge of flaps kinda low to the ground as already mentioned. Another characteristic of my RV-3 was that the airplane "preferred" to make wheel landings instead of 3 point. You could make a really pretty show off landing on the mains, but only "workmanlike" landings 3 point. No idea if this is the same with other RV models.

So for your purposes I suspect "back country" flying needs to be defined in terms of surface roughness more than runway length. I do know that RV's fly just fine off of dirt. There's a really nice guy with a Harmon Rocket called "scarlet screamer" I met at Columbia, CA who said he takes it camping all over Idaho with his son.

Where is the Redcreek , AZ strip. Couldn't find it on any of my sights.

Go to Shortfield.com, there is a chart and a description that I gave Chris a couple of years ago. It's about 20 miles due West of Payson Arizona right on the Verde River

XKV8R wrote:

M6RV6 wrote:I guess we need to define Airport???
Does that mean not paved?
I thought that meant if it had a track down it and was called an airstrip, it was an airport?
I always thought off airport meant it was not an Airport or Airstrip.
I have a grass strip down the middle of my alfalfa field, I figure that's an airstrip??
Whats the consensus out there?
Maybe a hole new thread
GT

I see your point, I should have been a little more descriptive.

What I meant was not even neccesarily off airport. For the purpose of this discussion, how about the strips in the idaho backcountry.....Dewey Moore? Mile High? Fish Lake?

Is there any other airplane that can do 160 knots and get in and out of strips as well as the RV's?

Cheers

yeah, a Sherpa.. but I think that may be a lil outta the price range!

With a 180 and cs I do not think there is another one out there, the only one I have ever been in is my 6 so limited experience, I know Pops Dory uses a 4 for when he is in a hurry!
I think there was an 8 or 9 in Anchorage with 850x6's on it, looked like it would work real well, just be tender to the motor mount!!
GT

I guess you need to decide if you want to go super fast into some places or go fairly fast in all places!! I picked the latest! BCT

I have a RV8 with 180 hp and a CS. It gets off the ground in a hurry, and can land decent. It wouldn't have any trouble on most airstrips. The stock vans tailwheel is hopeless(about 1" clearance), and most upgrades lift up the tail and make the 3 point more difficult. With good braking, 500 would be reasonable with a good pilot.

The gear on an 8 is lots like the spring gear on our C-180. The 4,6,7,9 and 10 have the round bar style. The A models are an accident waiting to happen on anything but pavement, IMO.

Great planes, my 8 is good for 170+ knots on about 9-12 gph. Most 8's weigh about 1000-1100 lbs, and have a gross of 1800. 42 gallons of gas still gives you 500 lbs of bodies and gear.

XKV8R wrote:

svanarts wrote:I sold my RV-4 because I just didn't feel comfortable taking it into the places I want to take my Coyote. That's the whole reason I got rid of the -4 and built the Coyote. I just couldn't see balling up my -4 just to see if I could get it into this strip or that. But that's just me.
I

What makes you more comfortable in the coyote? Is it the stall/approach speed, is it that much slower in the coyote?

The flap clearance when down must be minimal.

And I agree completely, this discussion does not include the nose draggers. Should there even be any nose draggers any way. I guess, if that's what it takes to sell more airplanes.

High wing rather than low wing, bigger tires, MUCH slower approach speeds, much shorter ground roll. I just feel more comfortable.