Originally Posted by
Big Pistons Forever
I fellow I know once asked me to do some basic aerobatic training in his RV7. I refused as I consider this aircraft completely unsuited for any aerobatic or near aerobatic maneuvering except in the hands of an experienced aerobatic pilot.
It has the trifecta of bad things in an aerobatic aeroplane
1) It is quite slippery and will gain speed very quickly on a downline
2) It has light elevator forces and so it is easy to pull a lot of Gee especially in the event of a panic pull
3) It has a surprisingly poor roll rate. Rolling to erect from the inverted or even wings level from a high bank angle takes a long time which is problematic if the airplane is well nose down and accelerating like mad
In addition the forward opening canopy is not jetsonable and so there is no way to abandon the aircraft with a parachute descent if it breaks up or is unrecoverable
The other challenge is of course how the aircraft was built. Even minor lapses by the builder can be catastrophic under high loads. The Canadian crash mentioned in the report was precipitated by the weight of too much paint on the rudder which unbalanced it and left it more predisposed to flutter.
Since I have engaged in basic aerobatic training with various RVs, while respecting your position, I do have a slightly different opinion. While I agree up to a point with you, I wonder if you may have been exposed to a “rogue” aircraft?
Point 1). Agreed, especially with the coarse fixed pitch propellor usually attached, but the installation of a constant speed propeller greatly aids in controlling excessive speed.
Point 2). Yup! Be very careful, Fly with 2 fingers (& don’t get scared!
)
Point 3). Every RV-7/7A (4+) I’ve flown had a roll rate at Va of at least 120 degrees per second, which in my mind is sufficiently rapid for recovery from an unwanted attitude. I would MUCH rather be in an RV whilst nose low and inverted than a Citabria or a Cessna Aerobat! Having also taught aerobatics in gliders (Blanik L-13 to DG-1000), I find this aircraft similar in rewarding an appreciation for when to roll, and when to push (& when to take over!). The only real criticism I have in the roll characteristics is the vibration that shows at large aileron deflections at cruise speeds and higher, (which isn’t all that bad of a thing when above Va).
Point 3A). A canopy jettison lever is standard (IIRC), if not, it certainly is available - at least 3 of the planes I’ve flown were equipped with one - a T handle in the upper centre of the panel. Besides it’s obvious advantage in emergency egressing, a lot of people install it as it is very handy to completely remove the canopy when working on the radios & instruments.
Point 3B). Totally agree. While I have also refused to fly certain certified airframes, I flat out tell prospective homebuilt aerobats on first contact that I will not fly any amateur-builts until I have conducted a thorough inspection of their particular aircraft. I will not do acro in amateur-built glassfibre airframes simply because I am not knowledgeable enough to do a meaningful inspection of the structure.
Regards,
Jamesel