What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-8 vs RV-8A

mwboggs

I'm New Here
Hi all!

I have been researching which RV I want to build for several weeks now, and I was wondering what configuration most pilots prefer, pros and cons of the 8 vs the 8A.

All of my time is in my Aeronca 7BCM, but I am trying to be cautious (gather all the information I can) about making the switch to a high performance tail wheel aircraft.

Thanks!
 
Very Docile

for a taildragger the 8 is as tame as they come IMHO.

Other than that, it's personal opinion. Speed and performance about the same. The 8 has gear towers that take a bit of the leg room but it's very comfortable on long trips.

As you can see by my signature, I much prefer the straight 8. I've been flying conventional gear aircraft for over 40 years and to me they are just plain fun. I also think the tailwheel planes looks better on and off the ground. Once again, just personal taste.

You'll love which ever one you decide on.

Oh, one last thought..
why would you want a sissy wheel?:eek:
 
Welcome to VAF!!!!


Hi back at ya:D

Michael, good to have you aboard the good ship VAF.

As you are already flying a conventional gear plane, I would go with same. Less weight & drag.

Far as I am concerned they look a lot better too.;)
 
"All of my time is in my Aeronca 7BCM,"

I think that would be enough to stay with a -8! You will be very impressed at how docile the -8 really is. It will take getting used to because things are happening faster, with proper transitioning you will be glad you went conventional. 8A would also be a great plane with the same flying qualities, but as others said the tw just looks more natural for the eye appeal.
 
I love how defensive the conventional gear types are. :D

Like someone else said, build what you want to see when the hangar doors open.
 
Build what you want

Build what you want. When I made the decision, most of my time was in an Aeronca 7AC. I chose the 8A for my own reasons. If I build a bush airplane it will have a tailwheel. Beyond that, I could find no reason to install a tailwheel outside of stroking my own ego....:)
 
Last edited:
Hi all!

I have been researching which RV I want to build for several weeks now, and I was wondering what configuration most pilots prefer, pros and cons of the 8 vs the 8A.

Michael,
It is a scientific fact that beautiful women and manly men gravitate to the -8, i.e., taildragger. I'm just sayin'....lol
 
...Less weight & drag...
It would appear that the RV-8 would have less drag than the RV-8A but I'm not so sure about the weight. Unlike the other RV models where there is a choice of landing gear configuration there is some additional structure for the RV-8 main gear (other than minor engine mount differences), for the other models there is additional structure for the A model as well as the additional weight of the nose gear. I just looked at the Van's site and they list a range of weights for the 8 and 8A that are identical.

Does anyone know what the weight difference would be between identical RV-8(a)s due to the gear difference alone?
 
Last edited:
It would appear that the RV-8 would have less drag than the RV-8A but I'm not so sure about the weight. Unlike the other RV models where there is a choice of landing gear configuration there is some additional structure for the RV-8 main gear (other than minor engine mount differences), for the other models there is additional structure for the A model as well as the additional weight of the nose gear. I just looked at the Van's site and they list a range of weights for the 8 and 8A that are identical.

Does anyone know what the weight difference would be between identical RV-8(a)s due to the gear difference alone?

There was an article in the RVator some time ago stating that the -8A should actually be slightly lighter due to the heavy bar style gear of the -8 and the extra weight of the gear towers. I seem to recall the difference was around 10 lbs as predicted.
 
There was an article in the RVator some time ago stating that the -8A should actually be slightly lighter due to the heavy bar style gear of the -8 and the extra weight of the gear towers. I seem to recall the difference was around 10 lbs as predicted.

Van's told me that the 8A was lighter when I was wrestling with the decision.
 
Unless you're one of us;

You should probably build the -8A. Only "Super Pilots" can handle the taildraggers.
 
Last edited:
Its your call

Try to take all the "build this or that" with a grain of salt, its all good idle banter or complete BS. I went with an 8A cause it made more sense for me. Look to what you are going to be using your plane for in the future and make a educated decision. You will be happy either way IMHO.

Randy
8A flying
 
Go -8. Consider this, all 8s are a bit nose heavy (forward cg) whether tailwheel or nosewheel configuration. The most frequent complaint I hear from -8A pilots is that they can't seem to keep the nosewheel from slamming down despite their best efforts to hold it off. That's because 8s are nose heavy. And it gets worse when you hang a bigger (200 hp) engine and constant speed prop on that baby. If you are comfortable flying a tailwheel airplane, then go -8. You'll be glad you did. I have more tailwheel time than nosewheel time at this point and I wouldn't even consider switching. The -8 is a very well behaved taildragger.

Chris
 
Consider the following:
-You're at the end of a long cross country. Perhaps you've been in the soup for hours, or dodging thunderstorms. You're tired. ATIS reports direct crosswinds of 10 knots. Can you make that crosswind landing in the straight 8? What about 12 knots? 15 knots? With a nosedragger, you just put it down and the geometry all works out *pretty* easily.
-You've been dying to take your buddy for a ride, but the winds are marginal for your wind limits. You wanna fly, your buddy wants to fly. The winds look alright... (I've had the last 3 flights in my friends T-6 cancelled for this reason. It stinks, but you know, that's the name of the taildragger game, and that's why they made nosedraggers.)

That being said, I'm still gonna build an -8.

Edit- Clarification: chrispratt, you posted while I did. I also ask the reader to "consider" something. This is a coincidence, I don't mean anything negative by it towards you.
 
Last edited:
Consider the following:
-You're at the end of a long cross country...
I'm not making this decision as I already own an RV. With my experiences, if I did need to make the decision, this would not be a factor I would consider. I feel confident that any crosswind or difficult wind situation that a nosewheel RV can handle, I can handle in my tailwheel airplane. From what I had heard before I owned such an airplane, I would worry. Now I think there is no difference in that regard.
 
Please correct me if I am wrong

I have read on this site that the 8a will land slower than the 8 because of the ability to get the nose higher on the approach. I have also read that landing and takeoff distances are marginally shorter for the 8a because you can get that nose higher.

The 8, I understand, and I seem to remember posts from Paul Dye and Andy Hill on this one, is not fully stalled on landing because of the landing gear geometry.

Anyway, take on board opinions of people who own and fly either an 8 or an 8a and more importantly, try and get a flight in both types before you make your decision.
 
Both?

I have owned both, nose wheel and tail wheel RV's and made hundreds of landings in marginal conditions in both. Bottom line, The A models are "EASIER to land WELL". IMHO.
Dick
 
Consider this also...braking...pretty important

I have thousands of hours in bush flying a 185 on rain soaked jungle airstrips in the 1000-1500' range at gross weight. So I know what I am talking about.

So consider this. I never scared myself landing in a 185 primarily because the CG and braking dynamics.

With CG behind the mains as in any TW aircraft, when you brake you will inherently get better braking. Don't worry about nosing over as you really have to work at that. In my training, instructors pointed this out and actually demo'd that fact. Trust me. The most common way to nose over a TW is miring up in soft soil with inertia still high.

Tri's have the CG ahead of the mains (brakes). Yes you will tend to track straighter as you brake, but you also will see a tendency on wet strips (paved of grass) to see your mains lock up faster. YOu counteract this with pumping action which as anybody who drives a car with ABS brakes knows...it takes longer to stop on wet streets. This can really be a factor if you aren't good at controlling your approach speeds within a few knots.

Bottom line is that TW/Conventional gear aircraft are a bit more tolerant of rogue runway conditions or final approach speed fluctuations.
 
Amazing...

Hi all!

I have been researching which RV I want to build for several weeks now, and I was wondering what configuration most pilots prefer, pros and cons of the 8 vs the 8A.

All of my time is in my Aeronca 7BCM, but I am trying to be cautious (gather all the information I can) about making the switch to a high performance tail wheel aircraft.

Thanks!

You are seriously still trying to figure it out or just trolling? :rolleyes:

No 8A is ever going to look this good...the 8A is an imposter.

2768232766_c72792f172_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Consider the following:
...
Edit- Clarification: chrispratt, you posted while I did. I also ask the reader to "consider" something. This is a coincidence, I don't mean anything negative by it towards you.

None taken. Great minds think alike. ;)

Chris
 
This will fly in the face of the purists

A few pounds here or there is not enough to even begin to consider as a reason for chosing between the planes. I fly a RV-6A that looks right and flies fast and I love it. I'm not fond of the landing gear look on an 8 - like a cigar in toothpicks - but they seem to be faster than the 8As. I have a hard time competing with RV-8s in cross country air races but I have never been beaten by an 8A (pause) yet. They are both slim and trim airplanes. When I went to North Plains, OR for three days of sheet metal airplane building instruction in 1996 (Scott was one of the instructors) they had the prototype fuselage under development/construction in the room - it was one of the most beautiful airplane structures I had ever seen (and I had been in the business for a long time even then). If you don't have a significant other that you want there beside you on those long cross countries the RV-8/8A is the best of the RVs in my opinion. If you are tired of the tail dragger ground operating requirements then build the RV-8A but if you want the most speed and are willing to continue putting up with the need for special sensitivity during ground operations then the RV-8 is your best choice.

Bob Axsom
 
Amazing

You should probably build the -8A. Only "Super Pilots" can handle the taildraggers.

After all the back and forth between tail and nose folks, Mel, you finally hit the nail on the head.

WELL SAID..
 
Hi all!

I have been researching which RV I want to build for several weeks now, and I was wondering what configuration most pilots prefer, pros and cons of the 8 vs the 8A.

All of my time is in my Aeronca 7BCM, but I am trying to be cautious (gather all the information I can) about making the switch to a high performance tail wheel aircraft.

Thanks!

That is a very good question, and I decided to go with the RV-8 as opposed to the RV-8A for the following five reasons:

1) The RV-8 has slightly better performance than does the RV-8A (and I want a plane with good performance).

2) I like the looks of the RV-8 better than the RV-8A (and since I am building the plane, then I get the opportunity to make such decisions).

3) I expect to have a tri-gear production plane in my hip pocket as well as an RV (so I am not too worried about not having something to fly should cross-winds be problematic).

4) I find it a bit easier to get in and out of an RV-8 as opposed to an RV-8A (and I have tried both).

5) I think that the RV-8 will be just more fun to fly than an RV-8A (sort of like my motorcyle is more fun to drive than my pickup truck).

I hope this helps!
 
5) I think that the RV-8 will be just more fun to fly than an RV-8A (sort of like my motorcyle is more fun to drive than my pickup truck).

The -8 and -8A fly exactly the same.

I don't think the RV-8 : motocycle as RV-8A : pick-up truck analogy really works.
 
Well, with only about 25 hours in an RV-4... and less than 50 total hours in various other taildraggers (Citabria, Cub, Supercub, etc), I got checked out in a new RV-8 on a Friday morning, soloed it Friday evening, took a small cross-country solo flight in it the following Saturday morning airport hopping around north Texas to get the feel of landing it at various different runways, and then flew it to Oshkosh Sunday morning. I guess I must be a "Super Pilot" now :p

But seriously, learning to fly the taildragger RVs after flying a Cherokee 140 (the milquetoast of airplanes) for ten years and 900+ hours, I kinda did have to re-learn how to land all over again, but it was not all that difficult.

And speaking of pickup trucks, the 8/8A makes a pretty good flying pickup truck itself. With two baggage compartments, and a max gross of 1800lbs, you can carry a lot of stuff and easily stay within acceptable CG range.
 
8A advantages

The 8A does have a few practical advantages over the -8. Regardless of what all the Super Pilots will tell you (being a former Super Pilot myself), the tricycle landing gear is easier to land. Not that you can nap while landing, it is just a little more forgiving. Land it on the nose wheel however and it will bite you. I also believe it is much easier to get it and out of, especially the rear seat. The -8A sits level and your butt is not lower than your knees like in the -8. My -8A doesn't have handles on the windscreen roll bar because of that. My wife much prefered extracting herself from the -8A over the -8, we tried both. The step also helps getting onto the wing (you could put a step on a -8, but I believe the Super Pilot handbook frowns on steps). Also, with out the gear towers, the forward cockpit area lends itself to a bit more storage space with a few minor mods (like the lower shelf on the right side on my 8A. I did not use Van's supplies rear rudder pedal option).

n531pkfirstflight040a.jpg
 
Objective Comparison?

Periodically and invariably, someone asks the nosewheel versus tailwheel question, and it's like throwing a match in a tank of avgas! You'll never see more mayhem! This thread arguably belongs in Doug's "Never Ending Debate" section!

Several years ago, in an obviously vain attempt to inject some civility and objectivity into the RV-8 vs. RV-8A debate, I tried to draft an ?objective? RV-8/8A comparison. My attempt wasn?t very effective then, and probably won?t help now, but below is my latest iteration. Sorry, I just couldn?t resist! Let the debate (friendly debate, right?!) rage on!

Bill Palmer :)


RV-8/8A OBJECTIVE COMPARISON (Attempt #3, Aug. 9, 2010)

VAN'S PERFORMANCE SPECS FOR EQUAL AIRCRAFT (180hp w/Hartzell C/S Prop, Gross Weight):

Cruise Speed: (75% Power, 8000 ft.) 8: 203 mph; 8A: 201 mph (+2 mph for the 8 = 1% difference)

Rate of Climb: 8: 1650 fpm; 8A: 1600 fpm (+50 fpm for the 8 = 3% difference)

Stall Speed: 8: 58 mph; 8A: 58 mph (= no difference)

FLYING "FEEL:" Virtually Identical.

INSURANCE COST: The 8 is some percentage (+10%? = editor's guess at this point) more expensive than an equivalent 8A. Why? Per the NTSB records, the 8's takeoff/landing accident rate is higher, for whatever reason (most likely pilot proficiency - - ed.). Note: The 8's higher insurance cost is mainly for hull insurance to correct, or compensate for, more frequent hull damage (losses) incurred in the takeoff/landing phase. Liability insurance cost is roughly equal for both aircraft. In other words, they are approximately equal as far as personal safety (bodily injury) is concerned. (My source for the insurance cost data was a circa-2004 report from the Falcon Insurance Agency.)

PILOT TRAINING/PROFICIENCY: 8 drivers should have tailwheel training, an endorsement, and reasonable experience (the more experience; the better). For those who have trained in the Champion series of taildraggers (or more difficult taildraggers), the 8 is a "No Brainer" (= very forgiving and honest as taildraggers go). The 8A also requires training, but no particular endorsement. The 8A's tri-gear is more familiar to those who trained in Cessna 150/172s and Cherokees, but the 8A's nose gear is substantially different (nonsteerable, castering nosewheel without a pneumatic shock or shimmy damper). For those who have flown Tigers, Cheetahs, Cirrus, etc., with castering nosewheels, the 8A is a "No Brainer."

LANDING: The 8 is challenging in a strong, gusty crosswind, but, again, it is more forgiving than most taildraggers. Great for good grass runways. Okay for hard surface runways. The 8A is an easy-landing tri-gear . . . as long as you keep the nosewheel off as long as possible (no pneumatic shock) and monitor the nosewheel's breakout force (no shimmy damper). The 8A is great for crosswind landings and hard surface runways. Okay for smooth, firm grass runways. Definitely avoid soft, rough runways with the 8A ( . . . and probably avoid these runways with the 8, for that matter. Main gears can dig-in, too.) From the NTSB online database, from Jan 2000 to Aug 2010, the ?failure to maintain directional control on landing?-type accidents/incidents were: RV-8: 8; RV-8A: 2.

PROP STRIKES: The RV-8A has a built-in prop protector (nose gear). The RV-8?s prop is more vulnerable to pilot error such as excessive braking, a bounced landing, ground loop, or a too-enthusiastic run-up. Of course, in the rare case of an RV-8 or 8A flip-over the props are equally vulnerable. From the NTSB online database, from Jan 2000 to Aug 2010, I found 2 RV-8 flip-overs, 2 RV-8A flip-overs, and 1 RV-8 prop strike (excessive braking). On the other hand, I wonder how many taildragger prop strikes are actually reported.

TAXI VISIBILITY: The 8 is "Adequate" with minor (or no) "S" turning required. The 8A is "Outstanding? with excellent forward visibility.

BACKSEATER: In the rare case of front-seat pilot illness or incapacitation, the 8 is more difficult to land for a "novice" backseater (non-pilot or no tailwheel time). Backseaters seem to like the 8A better for ground operations, because they are sitting higher, have better visibility, and aren?t looking at their knees. Also, the 8 normally sways from side-to-side a little when taxiing and landing; not an entirely comfortable feeling for a ?newbie? passenger.

TOLERANCE OF BRAKE FAILURE: The 8 has a steerable tailwheel for maintaining directional control after rudder control becomes ineffective. It's still rolling somewhere (brake failure), but at least you can keep the 8 pointed where you want to roll. The 8A has only the rudder. Below 25mph, or so, the 8A is rolling where it wants to go.

Note: In case of a one-side brake failure with the 8 or 8A, you can gain some low-speed control by leveraging a crosswind IF you detect the brake failure prior to landing (a brake check in your pre-landing checklist). Land with the crosswind blowing into your failed brake side and use the aircraft's "weather-vaning" tendency to help steer the airplane back to the centerline while you brake with the opposite side (good) brake. Also, you can try short, quick blasts of the engine/prop combined with full rudder deflection and/or application of the "good" brake to "push" the nose one way or the other. Lastly, once you slow down enough (5 mph or so), you can "cautiously" apply the remaining good brake to turn into a spin/stop. Some RV-8 pilots routinely do this as they park (the ?ramp spin?).

Final Note: Brake Failure is apparently not a common problem for the RV-8 or 8A. From the NTSB online database, from Jan 2000 to Aug 2010, I could not find any RV-8 or 8A brake failure as a cause for an accident/incident.

AVERAGE RESALE VALUE (for equally-equipped aircraft): Slightly in favor of the 8A (+5%? = editor's guess), but not much difference. RV-8As, like RV-6As and 7As, seem to sell a little more quickly. They're not in the listings long unless they're clearly overpriced relative to the current market.

WALTER MITTY FACTOR (IMAGE): Based on relative sales/numbers: In favor of the RV-8. The 8 is configured like a P-51 and many airshow/competition airplanes. The 8A looks great, too, but it does not recall nostalgic, romantic images of World War II fighters and airshow aerobats as the 8 definitely does. Frankly, it's a "personal preference" when it comes to looks and image.

PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION DIFFERENCES:
RV-8: Gear Towers, Steel Slab Main Gear, Tail Wheel Assembly
RV-8A: Engine Mount (Nose Gear Mount), Steel Rod Nose Gear, Lower Cowl Slot/Cover (to clear the Nose Gear), Main Gear Weldments, Steel Rod Main Gear, Boarding Step

CONCLUSIONS:

Both the RV-8 and RV-8A are great airplanes. They are both nimble fliers with the superb, responsive "RV Control Feel." They are both capable of sport aerobatics. They both climb "like scalded cats" compared to the average "factory spam can" with equal power. They both combine high cruise speeds with low stall speeds, a significant design achievement.

Both the RV-8 and 8A are relatively "roomy" specifically compared to Van's RV-4 and RV-7/7A.

If you imagine yourself as (or you are) a fighter or aerobatic pilot, the 8 is probably the one for you. In other words, "image" is everything! If you're mainly a cross-country traveler, want to save a little on hull insurance, and like the easy-landing tri-gear, the 8A is probably the one for you.

Recommendation #1: Before you buy, definitely fly the one you like, or both, if you are uncertain about your choice. Recommendation #2: Get your "significant other" involved in the choice! (It's much safer that way!) Recommendation #3: Go "Quick Build" if you're a first-time builder.

BOTTOM LINE: PICK THE ONE YOU WANT and ignore other's opinions. Don't Worry: You Can't Miss! Again, BOTH the 8 and 8A are GREAT-FLYING, TERRIFIC-LOOKING AIRPLANES!
 
the rv8 will have much higher insurance cost.

This is pretty much and urban legend. In my experience, I have found that identically equiped RV?s (one with the little wheel up front and the other with it in back), insured for the same value, with pilots of identical experience, on the same airport should have about the same insurance. (As long as the taildragger pilot has a hundred hours or more of tailwheel time.)
 
Which do most people build?

I notice Van's website doesn't break out the numbers, but I just went through my files. In the last 3 years I've certificated 13 RV-8s vs. 2 RV-8As.
 
Last edited:
This is pretty much and urban legend. In my experience, I have found that identically equiped RV?s (one with the little wheel up front and the other with it in back), insured for the same value, with pilots of identical experience, on the same airport should have about the same insurance. (As long as the taildragger pilot has a hundred hours or more of tailwheel time.)
Ooh no Mr. Bill! It is NOT an urban legend. A pilot (me) of identical experience on the same airport with airplanes of similar value.....will almost certainly pay more to insure the taildragger. All one has to do is call an insurance company and inquire. Jenny Estes, (Nation-Air) are you reading this? Bill, you did qualify your comments by adding "As long as the taildragger pilot has a hundred hours or more of tailwheel time." We'll see. The insurance industry is consolidating all the time and with industry change comes evolving standards. Besides, the United States is one huge tent. A lot can very well depend upon where one actually lives. Living in the St. Louis area and with barely 15 tailwheel hours under my belt, the main difference between the two RV's (other than location of the third wheel) is the 6A has a fixed pitch prop, the -8, constant. That said, there is well over a ONE THOUSAND dollar additional premium for the same coverage on the -8. One thing is significant. The premium on my -6A has remained consistent since I started flying it and that annual premium has remained essentially unchanged...no matter I had only 5 total RV hours back then or over 300 hours of RV time logged to date. There are urban legends but in my experience, this is not one of them.
 
Ooh no Mr. Bill! It is NOT an urban legend. A pilot (me) of identical experience on the same airport with airplanes of similar value.....will almost certainly pay more to insure the taildragger. <..SNIP..> That said, there is well over a ONE THOUSAND dollar additional premium for the same coverage on the -8. <..SNIP..> There are urban legends but in my experience, this is not one of them.

I think the urban legend part is the "Much Higher" phrase. When I was <100 hours of RV Tailwheel time I paid about $1,000 more than if I had the little wheel on the front but now that I am over 200 hours the premiums are only slightly higher than what others are paying on their -7As for similar coverage. Roughly $200 / year higher if I remember correctly.

I wouldn't let the extra insurance cost sway a decision on where to put the little wheel. Build what you want.
 
... Bill, you did qualify your comments by adding "As long as the taildragger pilot has a hundred hours or more of tailwheel time." We'll see....
Exactly why I included that line.

...
I wouldn't let the extra insurance cost sway a decision on where to put the little wheel. Build what you want.

Bingo, we have a winner!

Like any new toy, you will probably put well over 100 hours on it the first year. So, by year two, you won't get hit with that premium.

As my siggy states, "Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!" I will add, "Includeing the insurance companies."
 
In the last 3 years I've certificated 13 RV-8s vs. 2 RV-8As.

Yeah, I think compared to the 6 and 7, the 8 appeals to a slightly different type of pilot..probably one coming from more traditional tailwheel or experimental airplanes that have centerline seating and a right-hand stick - just like the 8. Centerline seating is a little sportier, and I think a tailwheel just naturally goes along with that theme better than a trike. I think 6's and 7's are more likely to be flown by those transitioning from more typical GA planes and are used to side-by-side seating and tri-gear.
 
Bill Palmer's summary I think does a good job of comparing the two models. I slightly disagree with the brake failure / rudder steering comment. When I taxi, I use rudder and only feed in brake when I need to. I am able to make gradual turns with the rudder and I can certainly keep it straight down the runway at slow speeds without brakes.

Since I'm posting, I may as well post some other thoughts...

Weight - As I posted earlier, the -8A is actually slightly lighter than the -8, but not enough to make much difference.

Performance - Virtually identical. The -8 is 2-3 mph faster, hardly enough to make much difference.

Landing - I have not flown the -8, but I find my -8A to be easier to land than Archer's & C172's. I can drop it in and touch down where I want (the C/S prop helps a lot) and I have great control and stability at low speeds.

Cross-wind landings - I have not flown the -8, but I have landed my -8A in 90-degree winds gusting to 20 kts with no problem and I consider myself to be an average pilot.

Rough/soft field - I will only land at grass fields that I know to be fairly smooth. I'm very hesitant to take it into a rough strip. It would appear that the -8 is more tolerant with this, but it has limitations too.

Aesthetics - Clearly this is subjective (although some -8 pilots pass it off as fact). I find more beauty in my airplane now that I have built it. I often get compliments on how great my unpainted airplane looks. On the ground, it's pretty even between the two, with maybe a slight edge to the -8. In a close in-flight view, the -8 (and taildraggers in general) looks better to me. However, I have yet to see my airplane in flight because I'm always flying it.:)

Comments - I find it funny that some builders justify building an -8 because of the better performance when it is only 2-3 mph faster or because they think it is lighter (until they find out it is slightly heavier, then weight isn't important). I say if you want to build an -8 because you like the looks or want to feel like a WWII pilot, then go for it. Most RV'ers that I met have been great, but there are a few insecure tail dragger pilots that will tell you that "real men fly tail draggers."

In short, Bill said it well - "Build what you want, not what others tell you to build."
 
Yeah, I think compared to the 6 and 7, the 8 appeals to a slightly different type of pilot..probably one coming from more traditional tailwheel or experimental airplanes that have centerline seating and a right-hand stick - just like the 8. Centerline seating is a little sportier, and I think a tailwheel just naturally goes along with that theme better than a trike. I think 6's and 7's are more likely to be flown by those transitioning from more typical GA planes and are used to side-by-side seating and tri-gear.


Eric,
Well said. I think you are spot on! The -8 is the sportiest of the dual configured RVs (both a conventional and tricycle configuration). I think you would see the same if the RV-3 and RV-4 were offered as a tricycle - :eek:.
Sorry it was hard to type that last sentence...

Just funnin' guys - I have several "A model" friends and I even hang out with them in public - sometimes.:D
 
The -8 is the sportiest of the dual configured RVs (both a conventional and tricycle configuration). I think you would see the same if the RV-3 and RV-4 were offered as a tricycle - :eek:.
Sorry it was hard to type that last sentence...

I think the few RV-4's with retracts, have to be the best looking in regards to the fighter look. I'm sure that others think the same. When the gear hangs out, it looks like we're in landing configuation.......

L.Adamson --- RV6A

Real pilots aren't afraid of a little blue knob... :D
 
I went up to Vans and flew the 8-A factory demo before writing the check for my QB kit. I almost went with the 8A because they had a QB kit in stock that someone had canceled. I decided to wait for the -8 kit because I liked the looks better and had a lot to TW time (2000+) hrs.
The RV-8 once proficient is one of the easiest TW aircraft to land that I have flown. I have time in Citaboria?s Decathlon?s Cessna 140?s Pitts S2B Champs and many hours in a Piper J-3 Cub. My -8 does not like to 3 point at all and after I let the airplane land like it wanted to in a 2 point configuration we got along just fine. With the rudder authority the aircraft has it will handle a lot of crosswind. Now if you want to have an exciting crosswind landing jump into my J-3 Cub on a gusty day.
The -8 and 8A are both great machines and the real pilot?s fly TW v NW thing is fun to kick around but I think real pilots fly safe.
 
other than building what you want, the kit cost is a bit more expensive to go with a nosewheel. I guess it isn't that much it looks like only $400 for the 8. i remember for the 7 its more like $700 more for the nosewheel option

one more tire to keep air in with the nosewheel!
 
Objective Updates?

Eric W., Bill R., Rick, and All:

Thanks for your comments!

Eric, accordingly, I have added the following ?Weight? comment to my continually evolving, if controversial, attempt to draft an ?objective? RV-8 vs. RV-8A comparison:

WEIGHT: The RV-8A?s tri-gear (tapered steel rods, 3 wheels/2 brakes, and mounting weldments) is a few pounds lighter (about 10 pounds) than the RV-8?s ?conventional? gear (gear towers, steel slab main gear, 2 main wheels/brakes, and tailwheel assembly). On the other hand, many RV-8 builders purchase the lighter Grove aluminum main gears (slab/17 pounds lighter/$1,600 or aero/11 pounds lighter/$2,000). With the Grove aluminum gear, an RV-8 should be around 1 (aero) and 6 (slab) pounds lighter than the RV-8A?s standard, steel-rod tri-gear. Now, if someone would just offer titanium rod gear for the RV-8A!

Hopefully, the above ?weight? comment is reasonable and acceptable to both the 8 and 8A communities. If not, please comment!

Also, Eric, as far as the ?tolerance of brake failure? section is concerned, I?m not quite sure how to modify it. I believe you are saying that I?ve been a little too harsh on the 8A, correct? How should I modify: ?Below 25mph, or so, the 8A is rolling where it wants to go.?? Should the 25mph (IAS) be 15mph or 20mph? In other words, how effective is the 8A?s rudder in terms of maintaining directional control with a failed brake on one side or, very unlikely, the loss of both brakes? It would seem that below some speed (IAS), the rudder, even at full deflection on the stop, must lose effective directional control, right? Please advise; Thanks!

Bill R., your comment that the insurance delta is reduced for pilots with 100 or more hours of tailwheel time seems perfectly reasonable to me. Accordingly, I have changed portions of the ?insurance cost? and ?pilot training/proficiency? sections to read as follows:

INSURANCE COST: The 8 is normally some percentage (+10%? = editor's guess at this point) more expensive than an equivalent 8A. Why? Per the NTSB records, the 8's takeoff/landing accident rate is higher, for whatever reason (most likely pilot proficiency - - ed.). Note: The 8's higher insurance cost is mainly for hull insurance to correct, or compensate for, more frequent hull damage (losses) incurred in the takeoff/landing phase. Liability insurance cost is roughly equal for both aircraft. In other words, they are approximately equal as far as personal safety (bodily injury) is concerned. Of course, if the pilot/builder has over 100 hours of tailwheel time, particularly including several hours of recent time in type (tailwheel RV), then the insurance delta between the 8 and the 8A may be substantially reduced or possibly eliminated. (My source for the insurance cost data was a circa-2004 report from the Falcon Insurance Agency.)

PILOT TRAINING/PROFICIENCY: 8 drivers should have tailwheel training, an endorsement, and reasonable experience (the more experience; the better; over 100 hours tailwheel time definitely helps). For those who have trained in the Champion series of taildraggers (or more difficult taildraggers), the 8 is a "No Brainer" (= very forgiving and honest as taildraggers go). The 8A also requires training, but no particular endorsement. The 8A's tri-gear is more familiar to those who trained in Cessna 150/172s and Cherokees, but the 8A's nose gear is substantially different (nonsteerable, castering nosewheel without a pneumatic shock or shimmy damper). For those who have flown Tigers, Cheetahs, Cirrus, etc., with castering nosewheels, the 8A is an easy-landing "No Brainer."

How do these sections sound now?

Let?s see, I was also thinking about adding: ?Real Men Fly Taildraggers, But The Men Women Want Fly Nosewheels!? How?s That?! Or, how about: ?Your RV-8 Looks Sexy Like a P-51, But It Also Looks Like a Dog With Worms!? (Oops! . . . I?m thinking that these comments might have the RV-8 crowd taking out a contract on me . . . I hereby officially withdraw these comments! They?re obviously biased and in poor taste . . . Sorry! . . . Really, I like RV-8?s; They?re Cool!)

Well, anyway, ?The Beat Goes On!?

Please comment if you like!

Bill Palmer ;)
RV-8A Finishing Kit
 
...
How do these sections sound now?

Let?s see, I was also thinking about adding: ?Real Men Fly Taildraggers, But The Men Women Want Fly Nosewheels!? How?s That?! Or, how about: ?Your RV-8 Looks Sexy Like a P-51, But It Also Looks Like a Dog With Worms!? (Oops! . . . I?m thinking that these comments might have the RV-8 crowd taking out a contract on me . . . I hereby officially withdraw these comments! They?re obviously biased and in poor taste . . . Sorry! . . . Really, I like RV-8?s; They?re Cool!)

Well, anyway, ?The Beat Goes On!?

Please comment if you like!

Bill Palmer ;)
RV-8A Finishing Kit

As Tad S. likes to say about his -7A, "I bought the Delux model."
 
Hopefully, the above ?weight? comment is reasonable and acceptable to both the 8 and 8A communities. If not, please comment!

Also, Eric, as far as the ?tolerance of brake failure? section is concerned, I?m not quite sure how to modify it. I believe you are saying that I?ve been a little too harsh on the 8A, correct? How should I modify: ?Below 25mph, or so, the 8A is rolling where it wants to go.?? Should the 25mph (IAS) be 15mph or 20mph? In other words, how effective is the 8A?s rudder in terms of maintaining directional control with a failed brake on one side or, very unlikely, the loss of both brakes? It would seem that below some speed (IAS), the rudder, even at full deflection on the stop, must lose effective directional control, right? Please advise; Thanks!

The "weight" portion looks good to me. Good point about the grove gear.

For the brake failure section, I would say what you have is well written, except maybe change the 25mph to 10-15mph. The prop wash helps quite a bit, but under ~10 mph the rudder effectiveness dies off quickly. As I mentioned in my previous post, you aren't going to turn sharply at low speeds with the rudder only, but you can keep it straight down a runway, or even make a wide turn to a turn off. This is just my experience with my -8A and others are welcome to comment. Of course, if you finish up your -8A, you will know what I mean. ;)
 
From the NTSB online database, from Jan 2000 to Aug 2010, the “failure to maintain directional control on landing”-type accidents/incidents were: RV-8: 8; RV-8A: 2.

Bill,

I did this check as well and got the same number of RV-8s, but found 3 RV-8A accidents (including one dug-in nosewheel).

A quick of the FAA registry shows about 860 RV-8s and 240 RV-8As, almost exactly the same proportions as the airplanes that had landing accidents. From this it would be hard to argue that RV-8s are more prone to such accidents. My own guess is that these accidents are more about overall aircraft control than the location of the small wheel.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top