RV8 aerobatic limitations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RV8 aerobatic limitations
I've been interested in the Vans series of aircraft for some time, particulary the RV8. I know it is cleared for aerobatics, but I was wondering what this specifically entails. Is the aircraft limited to specific manoeuvres or is it dependent on what it is tested for? Admittedly it is quite extreme, but could one start doing inverted spins, flick rolls etc (with negative systems installed, of course)? Also, what's the roll rate, and G limits?
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh do keep up!
This might be a good place to start looking http://www.pfa.org.uk/Data%20Sheets/...VANS%20RV8.pdf and then the RVsquadron...
This might be a good place to start looking http://www.pfa.org.uk/Data%20Sheets/...VANS%20RV8.pdf and then the RVsquadron...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PFA's aerobatic flight test schedule includes, loops, rolls off the top, stall turns and positive spins.
Inverted spins and flicks are intermediate competition figures - hardly extreme! Neither are particularly high G: neg one for the spin to commence about 4positive on the pull out. Flicking is about 3 pos or slightly less (in my aeroplane) negative - just very uncomfortable negative!
Inverted spin recovery is (Pitts-centric comment!) more rapid than erect recovery because whilst erect the tailplane blanks a large proportion of the rudder. Inverted it only blanks the lower section of the rudder.
Inverted spins and flicks are intermediate competition figures - hardly extreme! Neither are particularly high G: neg one for the spin to commence about 4positive on the pull out. Flicking is about 3 pos or slightly less (in my aeroplane) negative - just very uncomfortable negative!
Inverted spin recovery is (Pitts-centric comment!) more rapid than erect recovery because whilst erect the tailplane blanks a large proportion of the rudder. Inverted it only blanks the lower section of the rudder.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: S Warwickshire
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The -8 has quite a good aerobatics envelope compared to the -4 with about 200kg typical load - two people plus a reasonable amount of fuel.
Surely, if you are allowed loops, rolls, stall turns and spins, then everything else is essentially a combination of those maneuvers.
Van's aren't very keen on flick maneuvres though they don't explicitly bar them.
There's a video of flicking a -4 on http://www.rv-4.de/video/G-Rolle.wmv
The -6 and -7 should be getting their aeros approval before too long.
Limits are as in the PFA document; expect a roll rate of about 150 degs/s.
Interestingly, the -4 is approved for 3 turn spins, but the -8 only 2.
Surely, if you are allowed loops, rolls, stall turns and spins, then everything else is essentially a combination of those maneuvers.
Van's aren't very keen on flick maneuvres though they don't explicitly bar them.
There's a video of flicking a -4 on http://www.rv-4.de/video/G-Rolle.wmv
The -6 and -7 should be getting their aeros approval before too long.
Limits are as in the PFA document; expect a roll rate of about 150 degs/s.
Interestingly, the -4 is approved for 3 turn spins, but the -8 only 2.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark - are you sure that is a flick roll? It looks like a vanilla aileron roll - though I admit to not have flicked an RV4 though I have slow-rolled one!
Pitch up 30 degrees, check and stick over.
To flick it, you need to momentarily approach or exceed critical alpha, so that when the rudder is smartly applied after brisk rear stick, the inside wing stalls and develops zero lift. Smartly push the stick forward to unload or the roll component becomes buried.
Pitch up 30 degrees, check and stick over.
To flick it, you need to momentarily approach or exceed critical alpha, so that when the rudder is smartly applied after brisk rear stick, the inside wing stalls and develops zero lift. Smartly push the stick forward to unload or the roll component becomes buried.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+6 -3 gives you scope to fly all the standard, and intermediate aerobatic figures. I am sure it will flick, but how heathly for this type of aircraft such a figure is, only time will tell. A fantastic touring aircraft that can swoop a few aero's on sunday, yes none better. Dedicated aero mount.....no, in my opinion of course.
As for the G loading, its not normally the aerobatics that overstress the airframe, but the recovery from bad aerobatics...................
Get trained.
RV are a fantastic series of aircraft that have done wonders for the homebuilt market, I am just glad Dick Van Grunsden was able to develop his designs in a regulatory system that worked with him, rather than against.
As for the G loading, its not normally the aerobatics that overstress the airframe, but the recovery from bad aerobatics...................
Get trained.
RV are a fantastic series of aircraft that have done wonders for the homebuilt market, I am just glad Dick Van Grunsden was able to develop his designs in a regulatory system that worked with him, rather than against.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: S Warwickshire
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stik - It's a German site, and he describes it as a "gerissene rolle" (clever roll?).
The airspeed on entry looks to be about 70 knots, which would be quite slow to get that roll rate with ailerons alone, and the pre-roll pitch-up could be consistent with a snap.
Its not a maneuvre that I've tried, so I'm guessing a bit
The airspeed on entry looks to be about 70 knots, which would be quite slow to get that roll rate with ailerons alone, and the pre-roll pitch-up could be consistent with a snap.
Its not a maneuvre that I've tried, so I'm guessing a bit
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mark 1
The -6 and -7 should be getting their aeros approval before too long.
Last I've seen is information on the RVUK site regarding negotiations with the PFA. From what I'd read there, those had stalled (Ha!) due to, IIRC, PFA requirements for load testing of the tailplane and perhaps other components, which Van's weren't willing to go to the expense of (no real surprise!). Also UK spin testing. There was some discussion about some UK builders supporting the project, though - but this was around 2004.
Very interested to hear what's been happening recently.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: S Warwickshire
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PFA have now issued permits to test an RV-6 and an RV-7a covering spin and aerobatic testing.
This will be performed by the same pilot who did the testing of the RV-8.
A combination of weather and availability has meant not much happening so far.
Successful completion of these tests, as I understandit, should form the basis for all other RV-6 and -7s to be put through the standard PFA aeros flight test and gain approval.
It's been a long time coming, but there does now seem to be light at the end of the tunnel.
Now, where's my rivet gun.....
This will be performed by the same pilot who did the testing of the RV-8.
A combination of weather and availability has meant not much happening so far.
Successful completion of these tests, as I understandit, should form the basis for all other RV-6 and -7s to be put through the standard PFA aeros flight test and gain approval.
It's been a long time coming, but there does now seem to be light at the end of the tunnel.
Now, where's my rivet gun.....
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you! And I had a very pleasant trip tonight in the Southwest, so that good weather is here, waiting for availability. 
I'll have it after you 
Originally Posted by Mark 1
Now, where's my rivet gun.....
Last edited by DaveW; 17th May 2007 at 20:52.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark,
the rotation rate and that fact that there was no massive acceleration onto the roll after pitch up causes me to still believe that it really is an aileron roll - 70kts after pitch up, by the times the wings go knife-edge the first time lift has dropped dramatically. As they go inverted with high alpha, they'll get a wee bit of lift and suddenly they are knife-edge with the nose slicing through the horizon, wings level - oh, look nose down......
notwithstanding the above - a sweet vid
the rotation rate and that fact that there was no massive acceleration onto the roll after pitch up causes me to still believe that it really is an aileron roll - 70kts after pitch up, by the times the wings go knife-edge the first time lift has dropped dramatically. As they go inverted with high alpha, they'll get a wee bit of lift and suddenly they are knife-edge with the nose slicing through the horizon, wings level - oh, look nose down......
notwithstanding the above - a sweet vid
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure I'd want to flick roll a -4. If you look under the fairing near the vertical fin you will see that the mounting bracket for said fin is only slightly thicker than bacofoil!
Having said that, I'm in two minds - the initial g-force in the pull up (3g) is consistant with flick entry (and unnecessarily high for an aileron or ballistic roll), and there is a visible left yawing motion left just before the roll starts - again consistant with a flick roll....
I have experienced basic aerobatics in both the -4 and the -8 and they're both very pleasant and capable aeroplanes.
Having said that, I'm in two minds - the initial g-force in the pull up (3g) is consistant with flick entry (and unnecessarily high for an aileron or ballistic roll), and there is a visible left yawing motion left just before the roll starts - again consistant with a flick roll....
I have experienced basic aerobatics in both the -4 and the -8 and they're both very pleasant and capable aeroplanes.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am hoping to go for a ride in an RV8 soon. Its not an aerobatic competition machine, it goes too fast ! especialy, I understand if allowed to point at the ground for any time at all.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Henry: Oops - now that I re-read it, it does sound a bit stupid, doesn't it?! 
Sorry if I offended anyone else's intellect!
The point of the comment is still valid, though....
Sorry if I offended anyone else's intellect!
The point of the comment is still valid, though....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: S Warwickshire
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look under the fairing near the vertical fin you will see that the mounting bracket for said fin is only slightly thicker than bacofoil!
The front spar, which I think you may be referring to, attaches to the fuselage via the tailplane forward spar through a .063" thick 6061 alloy plate on the tailplane and similar 1"x1"x1/8" extruded brackets to the fuselage.
While building, I've always been impressed by the design work that has gone into the RVs, they are very strong, generally elegantly designed, and well up to the g-limits and Vmc that Van specifies.
It is designed to take full rudder deflection at over 120 knots, stall turns and aggressive side-slips, all of which are likely to load that area more than a flick-roll.
Have you compared it with any similar aircraft?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mark,
No - I haven't compared, it's just that to my inexpert eye, 0.063" doesn't look much!
Incidentally, if
"It is designed to take full rudder deflection at over 120 knots, stall turns and aggressive side-slips, all of which are likely to load that area more than a flick-roll"
is true, how come it's not cleared for flick rolls? Somebody, somewhere must have decided that there is some deficiency in the design that precludes them??
WP
No - I haven't compared, it's just that to my inexpert eye, 0.063" doesn't look much!
Incidentally, if
"It is designed to take full rudder deflection at over 120 knots, stall turns and aggressive side-slips, all of which are likely to load that area more than a flick-roll"
is true, how come it's not cleared for flick rolls? Somebody, somewhere must have decided that there is some deficiency in the design that precludes them??
WP
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: S Warwickshire
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WP,
As far as I know, you are allowed to do them. The limitations do not preclude them, even if they aren't specifically noted; so long as you don't exceed any operating limits.
Checking the manual, Van's specifically list the following maneuvers and entry speeds for the 8 and 8a:
Loops, horizontal eights 140-190mph
Immelmans 150-190mph
Aileron/barrel rolls 120-190mph
Snap rolls 80-110 mph
Vertical rolls 180-190mph
Split S 100-110mph
And, interestingly, they make the following note:
Because the RVs have good stall characteristics and good spin resistance, they also resist easy snap roll entry. Entered at speeds below 100mph they tend to be slow and wallowing. At above 100mph high G loads are required. For this reason most RV pilots avoid snap rolls and concentrate on looping and rolling maneuvers more suited to the performance and handling characteristics of these planes.
Or, as one colleague once put it; "it flicks nicely" is a euphemism for "it has a vicious stall".
There you have it. As I see it, flick-roll them if you want, but I probably won't bother.
Damn good fun aeroplanes nonetheless.
Mk.1
As far as I know, you are allowed to do them. The limitations do not preclude them, even if they aren't specifically noted; so long as you don't exceed any operating limits.
Checking the manual, Van's specifically list the following maneuvers and entry speeds for the 8 and 8a:
Loops, horizontal eights 140-190mph
Immelmans 150-190mph
Aileron/barrel rolls 120-190mph
Snap rolls 80-110 mph
Vertical rolls 180-190mph
Split S 100-110mph
And, interestingly, they make the following note:
Because the RVs have good stall characteristics and good spin resistance, they also resist easy snap roll entry. Entered at speeds below 100mph they tend to be slow and wallowing. At above 100mph high G loads are required. For this reason most RV pilots avoid snap rolls and concentrate on looping and rolling maneuvers more suited to the performance and handling characteristics of these planes.
Or, as one colleague once put it; "it flicks nicely" is a euphemism for "it has a vicious stall".
There you have it. As I see it, flick-roll them if you want, but I probably won't bother.
Damn good fun aeroplanes nonetheless.
Mk.1