RV-8 or Rocket HRII?

panhandler1956 · #1 07-09-2006, 11:30 AM

Well after getting great input on the RV-4 vs RV-8 I am now looking at RV-8 vs the Harmon Rocket - sorry guys, not trying to start a fight, but I am really struggling with this decision. Seems like you can build both for close to the same amount of money. Also I can't afford an F-1 Rocket QB or we wouldn't be having this conversation. I plan to build over 5+ year period to pay for the project so that might offset the complexity of the HRII.

Stuff I have identified:
RV-8
- much easier to build
- more builder support
- no chance of burning 20gph (good and bad)
- not as pretty as the HRII (IMHO)

HRII
- Fast
- Climbs like an elevator
- Hard to build with mixing 2 component manufacturers (3 in my case with F-1 parts too)
- Can build for about the same as an -8.

Any input is appreciated!

Brent

kcpgm · #2 07-09-2006, 12:05 PM

Consider insurance cost and resale

Ken RV-7 flying now painting i swear i can build a fusalage quicker then i can paint it Maine

L.Adamson · #3 07-09-2006, 02:24 PM

I have a 6A. Chose the nosewheel because I thought it was more practical, and better looking on the ground, than the squatting 6.

But there is NO question in my mind; my preference would be the Rocket & preferably the F1, over all the RV's.

Just meaner & faster looking, as well as actually being faster; and a "tail dragger" as well!

gmcjetpilot · #4 07-09-2006, 03:36 PM

You did not mention cost. The HRII comes in a QB form via Team Rocket (F-1). However when all is said, kit, engine, prop the HRII is way more money. Nothing wrong with more money, just a fact. Now if you are an expert in finding an old RV-4 kit, used 540 and prop, than you can build a "cheap" Rocket, but new for new, the Rocket is more money.

As far as planes, both are fantastic, you can't go wrong. They are both RV's anyway. Rocket guys want to say it's not a wider, stretched RV-4 with a 540, but it is. Nothing wrong with that, the RV-4 is a fantastic plane.

Last is the engine vs. fuel burn. Many Rocket guys, one in particular say they get better fuel burn than a O320 or O360. That may be true, but you better have great discipline and be skilled at leaning, which we all should be and is not hard.

I am guessing at least $20K-$30K more for the Rocket.

panhandler1956 · #5 07-09-2006, 03:49 PM

Great advice so far - keep it coming.

The insurance is definately higher on the Rocket from what I gather.

As for the build price, I would be trying to build it light - wallet wise and I have a supplier for inexpensive (if you can call it that) powerplants.

I totally agree with the fact that it is a modified RV-4 and in fact I like the idea of being attached to the RV series - what a wonderful group of very ACTIVE pilots! I actually started this quest in love with the -4 so this notion of a Rocket is perfect in that perspective - you can probably tell which way I am leaning.

I am pretty handy, have rebuilt a couple of non-riveted aircraft, but I'm a little intimidated by the mixin' and matchin' parts that is required to do an HRII. Can anyone comment on this aspect?

f1rocket · #6 07-09-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot

They are both RV's anyway. Rocket guys want to say it's not a wider, stretched RV-4 with a 540, but it is. Nothing wrong with that, the RV-4 is a fantastic plane.

In the same way your Volkswagen is like a Porsche. Give it up George. When you get to AirVenture, stop at the HPI tent and look inside the F1 QB. It is definitely not a RV-4. I don't deny the lineage, but the F1 is re-engineered and shares nearly zero parts with any RV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot

Last is the engine vs. fuel burn. Many Rocket guys, one in particular say they get better fuel burn than a O320 or O360.

I'm the one and I said better that a O360 at higher MP settings, like above 23 square. I'd be happy to prove it too. All the Rocket guys know it to be true, particularly if you have tuned injectors so you can run LOP effectively.

BTW, if I had to vote between the Harmon and the RV-8 I'd probably go with the RV-8 unless you've built one before. It is not impossible, but it is more difficult to construct a Harmon with both Van's and F1 parts. Visit my friend's web site, www.vincesrocket.com for his story on how he did it. If you're a first time builder, I suspect you'll have a much more pleasurable building experience with the RV-8. Van's sure knows how to do it right.

yarddart · #7 07-09-2006, 04:10 PM

I have flown both and i bought the 8 .

panhandler1956 · #8 07-09-2006, 04:23 PM

Thanks Randy, I have looked on Vince's site and all that technical stuff is why I have reservations, although I plan to just build a pure HRII with F-1 canopy and possibly F-1 tail feathers, I don't plan to use Mark's firewall and cowling. It would all probably make much more sense with plans and parts/pieces in-hand.

Thanks for all the great replies and keep em' coming!

Has anyone built an HRII that hasn't built a Vans first?
Brent

mark manda · #9 07-09-2006, 07:20 PM

The HR-2 is more roomy. Starting with the pedal area. I like the way a Rocket feels and fits-- but nobody sitting next to you to help fold those pesky charts.

I sat in the front seat of the yellow factory 8A at homecoming for twenty mins. and it was okay. 6'2 230#.

I would think you could find someone in Ohio and along with Matronics Rocket- list, stay ahead of the possible fuselage gotchas.

I thought most HR-2 guys are using the pre punched RV-8 emp. as an upgrade.

The Rocket guys I know are all P.O. at fuel prices. They all go straight up and land just so they can take off again.

Much more comeraderie with an RV-8.

Check out my web/homepage(by clicking on my name)-- I have plenty of misc picts of HR-2's and F1's. If you have time to search, they're all over the place.

O.T.-- the other day I saw an awesome F1. I thought it was a Harmon Rocket III (single seat Reno Racer version) but the pilot said it was an F1 built as a single seat. It's all silver and has a custom black three bladed WhirlWind propeller. AWESOME!!!

BTW-- I can't land a 182 anymore. PLUNK.

174MM
RV-7a 125hrs. since Feb. '06

gmcjetpilot · #10 07-10-2006, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f1rocket

In the same way your Volkswagen is like a Porsche. Give it up George. When you get to AirVenture, stop at the HPI tent and look inside the F1 QB. It is definitely not a RV-4. I don't deny the lineage, but the F1 is re-engineered and shares nearly zero parts with any RV.

I'm the one and I said better that a O360 at higher MP settings, like above 23 square. I'd be happy to prove it too. All the Rocket guys know it to be true, particularly if you have tuned injectors so you can run LOP effectively.

I thought my Porsche 993 was a VW, here I am going to the shopping mall.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/89615/porsche_933_crash/

ha ha ha ha ha. I knew that would get a rise out of you. I have known Mark for years and been hanging out at his tent at airshows for a long time; the F-1 workmanship is fantastic. The ribs fit perfect with no flutes! It is although based on the RV-4, that's all I am saying, geeeeee.

However I reject your VW Porsche premise or anology. It's more like comparing an old 2.2-liter D series to a 3.2-liter Carrera. They are both Porsche's, one just has a bigger engine and is a little longer and wider. Some like the lighter older porsche. Some feel a good pilot does not need all that power........

(I am kidding)

As far as gas milage I Believe YOU!

That is why I mentioned it. Touchy, geeeeee. However you DO have the potential to burn 20 gph on takeoff, so that has to average in to the spectacular enroute burn. Not to mention 4 more plugs and more oil. Peace Brother