Choose RV-4 or RV-8?

[Depp vom Dienst]

I am brand new to your forum and ask your patience with what may be something that has been already discussed.

The one big question that I have had for years concerns the choice between the -4 and the -8. Aside from the facts that can be garnered from Van's site, have any of you heard builders/pilots share why they opted for one over the other? Some have said the -4 is more of a "pilot's plane" whle others praise the -8 for its increased utility. Matched hole tooling is the obvious plus.

I apologize in advance for my lack of prior lurk.

[N941WR]

Depp,

Welcome to the forum!

This is kind of like the RV-9 vs. RV-7 debate, it comes down to personal choice. The -8 is a great airplane, as is the -4. Having ridden in both, the -8 has a bunch more room than the -4. The -8 seems to be more of a traveling machine that can do acro while the -4 is more of an acro plane that can travel.

If this is your first build, the -8 is much easier to build as the kit is all pre-punched. Where as the -4 requires a lot of jigging and head scratching.

Having built one plane (and RV-9), were I to build another one, it would be the -8.

One piece of advice I like to give, "Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build."

[tonyjohnson]

Depp,

Welcome to the forum. Let me begin with the disclaimer that I am no expert and opinions here may vary. I can tell you the things that I have learned from others who know much more about the issue, and whom I invite to chime in to correct me or express other opinions.

Many pilots believe that the 4 is the best airplane that Vans designed, with the possible and likely exception of the 3, regarding the fun factor. I have flown a 4 and found it to be, as described by others, as very responsive and agile. It does however have limitations notwitstanding the high fun factor.

The 4 is a light sport airplane, less suited to long distance travel than the 8. With that said, some 4 owners do travel cross country in their ships and don't seem to mind the limitations. Smokey Ray may be able to provide useful input here.

The 4 is limited, I think, to solo aerobatics. It also has some aft CG issues, I am told. That may be one reason for the solo aerobatic limitation.

The 4 will also probably take longer to build than the 8, since the 8 has pre punched holes.

The difference in cost to build the 4 seems to be not much less than the 8.

The 8 is more of a traveling machine which retains 95% of the fun factor of the 4.

There is a reason that nobody that I know of is building a 4 any longer. I suspect that someone is, and will hop in to tell us why. Those who are building an 8, and there are a ton of us, could have built a 4 but chose not to after doing the same research that you are doing now.

I still regard the 4 as an excellent aircraft. However, I chose to build an 8 (A). Whichever you choose, you will love it.

[Steve Sampson]

Depp, I am building a -4. My reasons are here:
http://gikonwhy4.blogspot.com/

Since I wrote that I am even more pleased that I am building a -4 ,not an -8, and it is to do with comments about -4 .v.-8 handling that I repeatedly hear. I am sure it is a very slight issue though, and you will be pleased with either.

I am sure there will be days when I wish I had more room for stuff when travelling.

Good luck with your decision.

[asav8tor]

Your height / weight and the height / weight of pax would be a consideration. Sit in a -4 then an -8. Close the canopy with a headset on. Move your head around. Twist and look back at the tail.

If you are buying, a very nice -4 would cost less than a similarly outfitted -8.

If you are building, a -4 is more work. No quick build available for the -4. Lower resale on the -4.

The -4 has a built up spar with no mill steps. The -8 has a simplified spar with mill steps.

[pierre smith]

Originally Posted by tonyjohnson

Depp,

The 4 is a light sport airplane, less suited to long distance travel than the 8.
The difference in cost to build the 4 seems to be not much less than the 8.

.

Oh yeah? Jon Johannson has gone around the world three times in his -4....solo! Visit www.vansaircraft.com and scroll down to Jon Johannson..

Regards,

[JonJay]

For about the same build cost, maybe a bit higher, 8's are selling for double that of 4's. They are the popular choice, not necessarily the right choice for you however.
All Van's products are great and fly very well. They may not be the fastest kits planes, they may not be the best STOL machines, they dont have a very good airfoil for inverted flight and advanced aerobatics, but they do amazingly well at all of the above, which is very difficult to achieve in one airplane.
I agree with all of the other posts.

[Bill Wightman]

Depp,

Welcome to one of the best forums on the www! VAF is like having Oshkosh on your desktop You can thank Doug Reeves for his effort in bringing this to all of us.

I flew my RV4 (see avatar) for 7 years and traveled alot of the US in it. With really good seats, the RV4 is just "ok" as far as comfort goes. Its a relatively tight fit, and the back seat isn't much good for adults on long flights. I did enough long ones with my wife or friends back there and they mostly froze and got a really sore butt. And at 5-10, I felt like any bigger would be a squeeze in the front seat.

And CG issues do come to life in the 4. Mine had a IO360 FP prop, and 210 was the limit in the back. At that point, my airplane had slightly divergent dynamic stability but it was controllable. A friend has a 4 with 200HP CS (very heavy engine installation too) and back seat weight isn't an issue, but it loses its light feel in pitch with all the weight on the nose. I think he's just at or maybe a bit outside the forward CG limit solo. The 8 accomodates a CS prop "by design" so there's another advantage it has -v- the 4.

The 8, which is what I have in the shop now, is much better on ergonomics. IMHO, that's why they sell for so much more. Flying characteristics are very close, with the extra heft of the 8 being felt a bit more. Aerodynamically, they're pretty much carbon copies of each other.

But, like you've read here, they're both good airplanes.

(The 4 looks better though )

[Depp vom Dienst]

Thank you to all who commented on my post. I really appreciated it.

I was wondering on my walk today if I would be trying your collective patience if I basically were to pose the same question but as applied to a -7 versus a -9. I can't see any great savings (or advantage) in the -9 and you are giving up the structural strength that make the -7 aerobatic.

I only ask rhis since my wife (who is terrified of flying) says she does not want to stare at the back of my bald head!

Sorry again for this being perhaps a stupid question.

[rv8180]

My two most important reasons for choosing the 8, over the 4, are room and carrying ability.
Originally, I went after the 4, but in the process, learned that the 8 would be more practical for my use.
I think the 4 will always have a "special" place in my heart, though!