What's new
Van's Air Force

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

New guy thinking about a 8A

Shadetree

Well Known Member
I have been lurking on here for some time trying to glean as much information as I can on 6's, 7's, 8's, and 9's. I know I am not geared for building one myself so I have been looking at what is available. Got in a 9 the other day and it was very tight quarters for the 2 of us.
It appears that the 8A has a little more cabin space for 2 well fed adults as compared to the side by side's. Our normal travels are 3 hours or less with an occasional 5 hour trip-sometimes over some mountains. I plan to take the wife and get her in the back seat of a 8 and have a few questions.
1) Is the back seat of the 8 harder to get into and out than the 8A?
2) Is there an issue of flying at gross weight as long as you are in the CG range?
3) Does the 360 HP 8A behave and high density altitude airports?
4) How long can the average person in the back seat stay in without a break?
5) I know each build is probably different, but what are the main airframe concerns to look for.
6) is there normally something on the back of the front seat to grab onto in order to exit the cabin?
I am not into rolls and spins-just enjoy seeing the countryside on cross countries.
These probably sound like kindergarten questions, but any help would be appreciated.
 
Welcome

Welcome Wade.
It sounds like you're on the right track involving the better half in the decision.
Best of luck.
I think you should go with the 7a.:D
 
Welcome Wade.
...
I think you should go with the 7a.:D

Hahahaha...Maje it a -9 negative Alpha!

If you want a side by side, take a serious look at the -14. There is tons of room in that thing! Of course, they are a bit difficult to buy right now as there are no customer built samples flying yet.

The -7 & -9 share the same fuselage but the -14 is wider and taller.
 
1) Is the back seat of the 8 harder to get into and out than the 8A?
2) Is there an issue of flying at gross weight as long as you are in the CG range?
3) Does the 360 HP 8A behave and high density altitude airports?
4) How long can the average person in the back seat stay in without a break?
5) I know each build is probably different, but what are the main airframe concerns to look for.
6) is there normally something on the back of the front seat to grab onto in order to exit the cabin?

1) I would think the 8A would be a bit easier as you are not tipped back so its less of an angle to push yourself up and out of.
2) Well, at gross weight things are quite a bit more sluggish and performance will suffer, but yet you can do it. Just be aware of longer takeoff runs and slower climb outs. etc. If you are planning to regularly operate near gross weights maybe a constant speed prop would be in order to gain the climb performance.
3) RV's in general have plenty of power compared to normal GA planes and do handle the high density altitude airports well. But at gross weight and high altitude you will need to be careful with any airplane!
4) depends on the person. I would not want to be in the back seat for more than a couple of hours, but I know people that go 5+ with extended range tanks!
5) if you are buying a ready to fly plane, I would look for bone stock if at all possible. It always seems easier to support and evaluate a plane that is as close as possible to the original design without lots of custom mods.
6) No, the geometry is not right to grab that close to you. Most people I know just push up on the side rails (think parallel bars) until you get your feet out of the stirrups so to speak. Then stand up and onto the wing. Some have put grab handles on the front roll bar and have passengers use that to pull themselves up but I have not found that needed.

Good luck with your choices. Best to go find a couple of examples and see if you can try them on for size. That will answer many of your fit questions.
 
My wife flys with me in my RV-8A. It is 180 hp with constant speed prop. The plane has lots of power, and flys just fine at Gross weight. I believe I still get 1000+ fpm climb at sea level, and climb into the oxygen levels at gross many times. She gets in and out fairly easily since the 8A is level, and with good seats have done numerous 6 hour X-countries with 1 stop. Good seats and good headphones, and the ride is comfortable in the back.

The big downside is that you can't really fly from the back for any period of time due to lack of good forward visibility.

Relative to issues, at 500 hours I have had very few, especially on the airframe. Check service bulletin compliance and verify health of engine and electonics. Also look for trailing edge control surface, and belly cracking right behind exhaust pipes.

Aaron
 
I have never flown in an 8A but there is nothing the slightest bit hard about getting into and out of the back seat of an 8. Significantly easier than my own RV-6 or 6As I have flown in.
 
1) Is the back seat of the 8 harder to get into and out than the 8A?
2) Is there an issue of flying at gross weight as long as you are in the CG range?
3) Does the 360 HP 8A behave and high density altitude airports?
4) How long can the average person in the back seat stay in without a break?
5) I know each build is probably different, but what are the main airframe concerns to look for.
6) is there normally something on the back of the front seat to grab onto in order to exit the cabin?
These probably sound like kindergarten questions, but any help would be appreciated.

A1. Flew in back of both. They are nearly identical. Don't recall any difference between the two.
A2. I've only flown my RV8 with the seller in the back when I checked it out. We were very close to gross weight. The flying was fine, making a good landing was a challenge for me but I think that had more to do with being in a new plane at high DA and trying to do 3 point landings.
A3. Bought mine in Arizona. The DA was around 6,500'. My ground speed while landing seemed much faster up at elevation (ground rush) then it is down here near sea level. I was also trying to 3 point land back then now I almost always wheel land.
A4. I've only been back there for 30 - 40 minutes. Seemed fine to me.
A5. What Andy said. Get a lightweight plans build plane. The good ones get snatched up fast.
A6. The roll bar and side rails.

I'm a new low time pilot so please consider that when looking at my responses.

Your question are good questions. I hope it helps.
 
RV-8 Back Seat

I have a experience in the back seat of an RV-8. In my opinion it would be easier to get in and out of the back seat in an RV-8A. Once in the seat there isn't any difference in the back.

How comfortable it is really depends on the size of the person. I am a thin 6'1" and I wouldn't want to regularly fly more then 1 hour in the back seat. The back seat passengers legs straddle the pilots seat. With long legs and this position it isn't the most comfortable position for a tall person for extended trips.
 
I have been lurking on here for some time trying to glean as much information as I can on 6's, 7's, 8's, and 9's. I know I am not geared for building one myself so I have been looking at what is available. Got in a 9 the other day and it was very tight quarters for the 2 of us.
It appears that the 8A has a little more cabin space for 2 well fed adults as compared to the side by side's. Our normal travels are 3 hours or less with an occasional 5 hour trip-sometimes over some mountains. I plan to take the wife and get her in the back seat of a 8 and have a few questions.

1) Is the back seat of the 8 harder to get into and out than the 8A?

4) How long can the average person in the back seat stay in without a break?
5) I know each build is probably different, but what are the main airframe concerns to look for.
6) is there normally something on the back of the front seat to grab onto in order to exit the cabin?

1) I'm 5'8" and around 200 lbs. Getting in is not bad but getting out takes some upper body strength, which should not be a problem for most people.
4) I've ridden in the back for a four hour round trip (2+ hrs each way). That was about as long as I could be comfortable given the padding that was there. More padding would make all the difference or a lighter passenger on the given padding might be good for 3 hours.
5) Lots of rivets to build an RV. The quality of those would be my primary concern, along with how often it flies to keep the engine lubed and not corroding.
6) I used the roll bar in front of the back seat (back of the pilot seat) to start the outing process, then move hands to the side rails once feet are coming out of their confines. Shorter people may have more difficulty since their feet won't reach to the front of the foot wells, allowing them to push off to start the exit process. A -7 with the slider option will provide a grab point on the roll bar over the panel to exit. Not sure if the tip up has this or you might reach back to grab.
 
Last edited:
I have been lurking on here for some time trying to glean as much information as I can on 6's, 7's, 8's, and 9's. I know I am not geared for building one myself so I have been looking at what is available. Got in a 9 the other day and it was very tight quarters for the 2 of us.
It appears that the 8A has a little more cabin space for 2 well fed adults as compared to the side by side's. Our normal travels are 3 hours or less with an occasional 5 hour trip-sometimes over some mountains. I plan to take the wife and get her in the back seat of a 8 and have a few questions.
1) Is the back seat of the 8 harder to get into and out than the 8A?
2) Is there an issue of flying at gross weight as long as you are in the CG range?
3) Does the 360 HP 8A behave and high density altitude airports?
4) How long can the average person in the back seat stay in without a break?
5) I know each build is probably different, but what are the main airframe concerns to look for.
6) is there normally something on the back of the front seat to grab onto in order to exit the cabin?

My wife and I resemble the "well fed adults" tag. We had a RV-6 before the -8A. The 8 has much more room for each occupant. The A version of the 8 is easier for the passenger to enter and exit because it sits level. The only complaint my wife has is not being able to cross her legs
(couldn't do that in the -6 either). We have flown many 3 hour legs. I do try and plan no more than that. She never has complained. Our plane has a O-360 with CS prop and when we
travel together, we are frequently at gross weight. There are no issues, and it performs well
at high density altitude airports. The constant speed prop allowing full rpm at take-off
makes a big difference in that scenario over a fixed pitch prop. the 8's front and back
baggage compartments makes CG balance very easy. I've never had any CG issues (but
I weigh everything before a trip). The front seat back weldment is a great handle for exciting
the rear seat. Do not need anything for the front. When I was deciding what to build after the
-6, all of the above, extra space for occupants, great performance and front and rear
baggage compartments were the reasons we built the 8. Before the 14 came along, I think
it was the best 2 seat RV for our mission. The 42 gallons of fuel is a plus also (more than the 4, 6, 9). All RV's are nice, but we love our -8A!
 
The One She Likes

Based on personal experience, I would highly recommend that you and your wife fly to Portland, rent a car, and drive to Van?s in Aurora to at least sit in all of the RVs. If you are not planning to purchase a kit, you should make this clear to Van's up-front, because demo rides are for potential Van's kit customers; not used RV seekers. If you are interested in a demo ride, you might ask Van's if they know of an RV owner nearby that might give you a ride in the RV you are interested in; as long as you pay for it.

Regardless of how you obtain an RV, I would highly recommend that you let your wife choose the particular RV she likes . . . ;).

And . . . don't be surprised if you find yourself buying a kit . . . :D.
 
Last edited:
Today we went to a friends hangar and set in his 8. Wasn't as bad as I thought it might be for her in the back. I think she is spoiled to the room in the twin Comanche, especially the leg room.
The panel is up close and personal, which I think I could get used to quickly.

I really appreciate all the responses and advice.
 
Okay?

Tom (g_zero),

I think it?s fine that you like the way your RV-8 looks. I like the way RV-8s look, too, but those of us who chose RV-8As obviously like the way they look also. Is that okay? Why post a criticism (?an 8a . . . not so much?); particularly if it?s just a personal view?

Also, there a quite a few VAFers who happen to like the way RV tri-gears handle. Is that okay? Or must we build and master a taildragger in order to be respected and accepted?
 
Long distance flights in the 8

I'm probably the guy referred to as flying 5+ hours legs. The wife is somewhere between 130 and 140 pounds. Only God knows for sure. She is 5' 8" and is very happy in the back seat of our 8. She's a former teacher, and five hour legs are harder for me than her. Of course, I can easily get relief in flight.

With the extra 9 gallons in the wonderful Hotel Whiskey aviation extended range tanks, we have flown non-stop between Oshkosh and Fort Worth several times. Flying time is between 4+30 and 4+45. It's really no big deal! It beats the heck out of landing somewhere in Oklahoma where the temp is 100+F in the shade after cruising at 8500' in nice cool air, just to refuel and fly another 40 minutes in the heat and bumpy air to the home field. Either way you are going to spend the same amount of time in the seat!

The RV-8 has more room for people, a better view from either seat, is a little faster for the same horsepower, can be easily loaded in CG to GW, and IMHO the is pick of the RV litter. Getting into and out of the back seat is no more difficult than the side by sides I've flown. In the 8 you have a canopy rail on both sides to push yourself up and out. The side by sides only have one.

If you like the 8's looks the best, get a tailwheel endorsement. She's a pussycat to handle. Do wheel landings and you'll look like Chuck Yeager wheeling in his P-51 Mustang.
 
Last edited:
Mission?

Do wheel landings and you'll look like Chuck Yeager wheeling in his P-51 Mustang.

Wade (Shadetree),

Walter Mitty flies his RV-8 and dreams he?s Chuck Yaeger flying a P-51D . . . that?s the ?Real RV-8 Deal? if that?s what you want. Joe Pilot flies his RV-8A and likes it for itself; particularly when landing in gusty crosswinds. Walter and Joe have different missions.

You decide!
 
Touchy

Lighten up Bill. No one is putting down your tricycle, they're just expressing a different preference.
 
"No one is putting down your tricycle"
Too Funny .


Could you imagine how homely a RV4-A would look ??
 
You said "360 HP", I'm sure you meant the IO or O - 360 engine.
Questions to ask (and get no consensus!) are:
carb or fuel injection
fixed pitch or CS prop
 
8a

Bill , it's all good fun between pilots and plane owners . "Built the plane you want " is something I read on the forums all the time .
I worked my way up the tailwheel chain from a Cessna 120 to Open Cockpit Biplanes to the RV8 I have now . I personally have never seen a Sport Plane that looks better as a nose wheel , Extra , Pitts ,Skybolt, Thorp ..RV , that's why I invested a few years working my way up the tailwheel chain .
Maybe Anti-Splat's nose gear stiffener kit should come with some thicker skin.
 
The Thin Man

Tom,

My thinner skin these days? I suppose it’s mainly a personal backlash, a slight sense of “I’m not going to take this anymore” (search youtube, Albert Finney, and Network) and, to some extent, various RV-A-negative posts over the years. I admit that I’ve personally grown tired and disappointed with the whole “my own RV is best” thing; supposedly proposed in fun, but . . . It certainly may be that the time has come for me to hang-up my occasional posts and submerge mainly as a lurker . . . less stress, for sure.

Regarding your statement: “Personally I have never seen a Sport Plane that looks better as a nose wheel,” I have two points:

(1) That’s only your opinion, but it does have some merit (Pitts, for example). On the other hand, there are many hundreds of RVers on this forum who are proud of the way their A models look. You’ve just made it clear to all of them that you disagree. Is that really the message you want them to receive?

(2) Also, and I really don’t like bringing this up, but you’ve forced my hand: I’ve never seen an RV-8 that looks as good, on the ground or in-flight, as a real P-51, either.

In other words, it’s all about personal perspective, and I don’t think negative personal opinions about the way another guy’s RV looks is positive for, or in the spirit of, VAF. In that spirit: I hereby apologize for the “real P-51” comment. RV-8’s do look great (see today’s VAF front page for a really nice one by Ken Owen), but everything is relative.

When a newbee like Wade jumps on the forum and inquires about an 8A (or 6A, 7A, or 9A), a few in the RV taildragger crowd are quick to trumpet their cause which is fine if it weren’t for the A-model put-downs or snide comments that invariably accompany their argument.

Danny,

Selling the RV-8 to a newbee as a pussycat only requiring a tailwheel endorsement (10 hours) is clearly stretching it. As many have pointed out, RV transition training is also needed. The consensus also seems to be that 50-to-100 hours of overall tailwheel time is a really good idea; at least for insurance, but also for safety.

True Story: Three years ago, on his first solo flight in his beautiful, new RV-8, a local builder (a super-nice guy, by the way), ground-looped his RV-8, tearing-off the main gear, wiping-out the prop, and putting uncertainty into his Lycoming. He had a tailwheel endorsement and several hours of dual time in his RV-8. I don’t know exactly how many dual hours; I think it was about 5. The point being that the RV-8 is a pussycat if the pilot is highly experienced in taildraggers. On the other hand, actively promoting the RV-8 to a newbee with no tailwheel time definitely has a dark side. Even a few of the very best RV-8 pilots have ground-looped for various reasons; granted, usually not the pilot’s fault (brakes, obstructions, gusts, whatever). A newbee is certainly at higher risk than a veteran tailwheeler who inherently knows how to respond.

IMHO, the RV-8A is a much better, more confident choice for newbees than the RV-8. And, the 8A looks terrific, too . . .

kbf1ok.jpg
 
Last edited:
Regardless of skin thickness, I think most, if not all, would agree that getting your tail wheel endorsement makes one a better pilot with respect to takeoff and landings.

This said by a guy with no tail wheel time :eek: yet. When Tom (TSFlightLines) gets his -7 done, I hope to already be endorsed so I can compare it to my -7A. :D
 
Mostly Fiction

Tom,

My thinner skin these days? I suppose it?s mainly a personal backlash, a slight sense of ?I?m not going to take this anymore? (search youtube, Albert Finney, and Network) and, to some extent, various RV-A-negative posts over the years. I admit that I?ve personally grown tired and disappointed with the whole ?my own RV is best? thing; supposedly proposed in fun, but . . . It certainly may be that the time has come for me to hang-up my occasional posts and submerge mainly as a lurker . . . less stress, for sure.

Regarding your statement: ?Personally I have never seen a Sport Plane that looks better as a nose wheel,? I have two points:

(1) That?s only your opinion, but it does have some merit (Pitts, for example). On the other hand, there are many hundreds of RVers on this forum who are proud of the way their A models look. You?ve just made it clear to all of them that you disagree. Is that really the message you want them to receive?

(2) Also, and I really don?t like bringing this up, but you?ve forced my hand: I?ve never seen an RV-8 that looks as good, on the ground or in-flight, as a real P-51, either.

In other words, it?s all about personal perspective, and I don?t think negative personal opinions about the way another guy?s RV looks is positive for, or in the spirit of, VAF. In that spirit: I hereby apologize for the ?real P-51? comment. RV-8?s do look great (see today?s VAF front page for a really nice one by Ken Owen), but everything is relative.

When a newbee like Wade jumps on the forum and inquires about an 8A (or 6A, 7A, or 9A), a few in the RV taildragger crowd are quick to trumpet their cause which is fine if it weren?t for the A-model put-downs or snide comments that invariably accompany their argument.

Danny,

Selling the RV-8 to a newbee as a pussycat only requiring a tailwheel endorsement (10 hours) is clearly stretching it. As many have pointed out, RV transition training is also needed. The consensus also seems to be that 50-to-100 hours of overall tailwheel time is a really good idea; at least for insurance, but also for safety.

True Story: Three years ago, on his first solo flight in his beautiful, new RV-8, a local builder (a super-nice guy, by the way), ground-looped his RV-8, tearing-off the main gear, wiping-out the prop, and putting uncertainty into his Lycoming. He had a tailwheel endorsement and several hours of dual time in his RV-8. I don?t know exactly how many dual hours; I think it was about 5. The point being that the RV-8 is a pussycat if the pilot is highly experienced in taildraggers. On the other hand, actively promoting the RV-8 to a newbee with no tailwheel time definitely has a dark side. Even a few of the very best RV-8 pilots have ground-looped for various reasons; granted, usually not the pilot?s fault (brakes, obstructions, gusts, whatever). A newbee is certainly at higher risk than a veteran tailwheeler who inherently knows how to respond.

IMHO, the RV-8A is a much better, more confident choice for newbees than the RV-8. And, the 8A looks terrific, too . . .

kbf1ok.jpg

Its just TRUE, Tail wheels look cooler.

Fights back on..
 
FACT..... The "A" model is the backbone of Van's Aircraft.

The tail wheel design was an engineering error. And was abandoned by every military and civilian airlines on this planet.

Does it make you a better pilot? No. It forces you to learn the quirks of an engineering error. If you have a tail wheel, make sure you have "ground in motion" on your insurance policy.... in most cases, you taxi blind.

DISCLOSURE...... This post is all in fun..... I don't give a s@!t what you fly, or why you fly it...... Just don't expect others to think that you are superior and so is your airplane.


PS. I am building an RV3, and expect to be elevated to superior some day..........:D
 
FACT..... The "A" model is the backbone of Van's Aircraft.

The tail wheel design was an engineering error. And was abandoned by every military and civilian airlines on this planet.

Does it make you a better pilot? No. It forces you to learn the quirks of an engineering error. If you have a tail wheel, make sure you have "ground in motion" on your insurance policy.... in most cases, you taxi blind.

DISCLOSURE...... This post is all in fun..... I don't give a s@!t what you fly, or why you fly it...... Just don't expect others to think that you are superior and so is your airplane.


PS. I am building an RV3, and expect to be elevated to superior some day..........:D

I don't care who you are, this is just too funny!!!:D
 
"The tail wheel design was an engineering error. And was abandoned by every military and civilian airlines on this planet."

I know you said it tongue-in-cheek, but it's quite true. There's a front and a back to everything, and the early aircraft designers simply got it wrong.

Edit: I've started a poll over on Pilots of America. You can vote "Agree" or "Disagree" to this statement over there. ;)
 
Last edited:
Thumbs UP

The tailwheel configuration has always been known as the "conventional gear" arrangement. This implies that the tricycle gear is "unconventional"! :D

A true statement if there ever was one...

Well put!
 
Wasn't the original configuration a skid on the tail position on the original tailwheel aircraft? So if you are a true tail dragger pilot why is there a wheel there now?:confused:
 
Last edited:
Tom,


Danny,

Selling the RV-8 to a newbee as a pussycat only requiring a tailwheel endorsement (10 hours) is clearly stretching it. As many have pointed out, RV transition training is also needed. The consensus also seems to be that 50-to-100 hours of overall tailwheel time is a really good idea; at least for insurance, but also for safety.




Bill,
The RV-8 is a pussycat as taildraggers go, and there is no reason to fear it. That said, who suggested that the low time taildragger pilot should not be completely checked out? Doug Reeves had zero tailwheel time and only 200 hours total time when he built his RV-6. He received dual, and flew his 6 on nice days for the first 100 hours or so. Later I flew formation takeoffs with him all the way from Forth Worth to Oregon for Van's home coming. Doug is a very competent tailwheel pilot and I would fly with him anytime. I could give you many more examples. Two are in my neighborhood. Both mastered their RV-8s after a checkout and less than a 100 hours. It's not rocket science. What puzzles me the most is guys that have the confidence to build a plane in their shop but somehow think taildraggers are too big a challenge.

I'm sorry for the tricycle reference, but I felt that you made fun of me because I purposed the fantasy of looking like Chuck Yeager wheeling in his Mustang. I admit to having life long Mustang envy, painting my RV-8 like Col John D Lander's Big Beautiful Doll. I also admit to feeling just a little like a Mustang pilot looking over my checkerboard nose making a perfect wheelie in front of the home crowd! I'm 66 years old and my 8 is as close to my Mustang dream as I will ever get!


158011h.jpg
 
Last edited:
Wasn't the original configuration a skid on the tail position on the original tailwheel aircraft? So if you are a true tail dragger pilot why is there a wheel there now?:confused:

No - the original configuration was two skids side-by-side and a launching rail.... :):p
 
I know that we are all having fun poking at each other on this subject, but Danny is right. We should not be making anyone feel bad or insult them.

I currently have no tailwheel endorsement, however I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on building a cub type clone so I do have an tailwheel aircraft in my future. As already stated many times before you must build what you want and will be happy with, not what someone else wants you to build.
 
The Final Frontier

xanbsp.jpg


Interesting, Captain

The communications ?ground loop? or ?prop strike? seem to have a remarkable skin-thinning effect on the tailwheel species. Also, they become quite agitated and irritable.

Alternately, the communications ?tailwheel endorsement? or ?pussycat? seem to have a calming effect along with a partial re-thickening of their skin.
The communication ?P-51? seems to make them ecstatic. They seemed confused by the communication ?F-15,? though.

Fascinating.

Given their strange mental and physical behavior, I would recommend that we activate the prime directive and depart immediately at Warp 3 or better.

May these ancient tailwheel creatures continue to live long and prosper . . . without us.

971p1l.jpg


I agree. Engage the warp drives. We?re Outta Here!
 
One of my favorite airplanes is the F-86A Sabre, nose wheel and all!

AND!!! You can paint an RV to look just like one...someone has! The thing I like about F-86 detailing is the fact that the aircraft type identifier is "FU". Nothing like having a big FU on the side of a fighter fuselage... :



 
Last edited:
DanH

......."14 things to never say to a naked woman." "And this is little Elvis". You must be one of those "Metro" guys I've read about in the paper. Where is that rag written? New York City? :D Some time's people are laughing with you and some time's there laughing at you!:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
 
Last edited:
Shadetree, You did get honest information up to here..... http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=988080&postcount=16

You will find that whatever RV you purchase, you will really enjoy flying it. And if you hang out here, you will see this scenario repeated about every 45 days....... We just LOVE our RV's


Oh, one other thing....... Van has two personal airplanes that he built in the past few years, an RV10 and a RV12. They both have nose wheels. And Van is about the most experienced pilot in the RV family.
 
Nose wheel vs tail wheel

First they are all fun. I have over 5,000 hours of tail wheel time from Pitts to DC-3 and no tail wheel endorsement. My RV6A is a great, fun airplane to fly.
 
On the cover of the magazine above, "14 things to never say to a naked woman." "And this is little Elvis". Is the picture of the tiny tailwheel Little Elvis? :D
 
Back
Top