M

mycole

Member
Looking at finding the difference in cockpit size between the 8 and the 4, front seat and rear seat. Any takers?

Thanks, md
 
Cockpit Dimensions

Basic dimensions are available on Van's site at:

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-4spe.htm

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-8spe.htm

The 8 is a 'stretched' cockpit compared to the 4...six inches longer, not to mention the additional baggage capacity.

I've been the Guy in Back (GIB) in both...the 8 is much more comfortable from a passenger point of view. The rear seater gets to stretch out a bit (footwells help) and has more shoulder room (27" vs 25" in the 4) and headroom (40" vs 39").

Front seater also gets more legroom in the 8 (and the in-flight adjustable rudder pedals make it easier to find a good fit).

Mike
 
Thanks Mike, I should have been more clear... what I really wanted was what you gave me... what it really feels like to sit in the two planes. Thanks for the feedback.

md
 
How big are you?

I rode briefly in the back of an RV-4 and considered it cruel and unusual punishment. I am 6'2". In my opinion, based on my one flight (I don't want another, thank you), the back seat of an RV-4 is suitable only for children and small women--or for baggage if flying solo.

The -8 looks much better.
 
Comp.

I've had a guy who was "5 foot 20in" tall and weighed at least 265lb in the back seat of my -8. of course the flight was 20 min. and was to pick up his Beech Baron and didn't cost him anything, so he didn't complain!!!!!!!!!!

Thought it was kind of odd to add forward stick in the flare though!!!!!!!!!;)
 
I've riden in the back of both. I'm 6', 160lb, and the -4 is snug. The -8 feels noticably less so. The "beltline", to borrow an automotive term (i.e., top of the fuse, bottom of the canopy), feels lower in the -4, with your head more exposed and "in" the canopy.

The questions is whether this is good or bad. Everyone will have a different answer. I thought the -4 was fine, but then again, I used to paddle a sea kayak that was 21" wide, with a very snug fit into the cockpit.

TODR
 
Thanks for all the replies. I'm 6' on the nose, 200 lbs. but the folks in the back seat will mostly be my wife (5'6") or one of the kids. I'm still leaning towards the 8 even though there's an increase in cost (i'm looking solely at finished AC) since the improvements seem to justify that cost.

md
 
I'm 6'4" 200#. I fit snugly, but comfortably in the -8. The guy who let me sit in his previously owned a -4. He said I would never fit in a -4. Another thing to consider. The -8 is completely match-hole construction. the -4 kit has a lot less pre-fabrication (so I am told). The -8 will take a lot less time to build. Put a price on 400+ hours more for the -4. At $10/hr the price of a -8 becomes more reasonable.
 
I'm 6' 215 lbs I"ve been in the back of a 4 and an 8 on the same day, 1hr each way. Granted there is not as much room in the 4 as there is in the 8 but it seemed OK to me.
 
You acclimate to the size of the space quite quickly "IF" you fit. Best to try it on for size. I don't know about the 8 but in the 4 world there have been variations on canopies shipped over the years, final cut/height by builder, front seat back position, panel position, and panel length. Very important to try on the specific aircraft since there are so many variables on the 4. Much has been said about "Build it light as intended". On light 4 (usually nose light) you will run out of CG before space for the rear seater. On a nose heavy 4 you will run out of space. This can be a good thing :)
 
Last edited:
Dimensions aren't everything. Some of this is subjective but I will say that I'm more comfortable flying a -4 than an -8. The viz is a bit better notwithstanding the dang rollbar in an -8 because you sit higher. A side effect of sitting higher, the stick is further down in between your legs and the panel is right up on your kneecaps. That and I'm don't like flying with my feet close together, and with your toes having to be more upright. In a -4 on a cross country you can flip the pedals up a bit to give you some room to stretch your feet. The gear towers are also a factor of comfort in the -8.

The other day I flew a brand-new fastback RV-3 and I was quite comfy... I'm 5-11 and 230, with broad shoulders. Man I really like that RV-3. My -6 really feels like a truck in comparison. The three is the smallest, and if a guy my size is comfortable in it...then the numbers don't mean all that much.
 
I'm with RocketBob in that the numbers do not mean a lot. You really REALLY need to sit in both to know what will work for you. More importantly, you need to determine WHAT you want to do with it in the long term. Performance is similar...but one, the 4, is more focused, the other, the 8, is more general purpose.

Subjectivity and perspective has a lot to do with the choice as well. Even more than body size. I am 5' 10" and 210 pounds. I can fit in them all "comfortably" so to speak, although you could not pay me to fly a 6 for long. Sorry, but its a tight squeeze on the shoulders with two adults - And thats part of the subjectivity. I've live with a tight cockpit for years in the form of a Luscombe...If you are going to fork over what one of these things costs, weigh all of the factors.

I've wanted a 4 my entire adult life. But when I sat in an 8, my heart sank (CHA$$$$ing) because there was no way I was going to get a 4 after that experience. I fit in the 4 fine...BUT (and here is the subjective feel) - I've been flying Luscombe's for 25 years. The proverbial phone booth with wings. Tight cockpit with no room if you have large passenger next to you - and the back of the 4 is like a sardine can for anyone over a certain weight. I did not want to trade a slow tiny cockpit for a fast tiny cockpit. The 4's front isn't all that large either and I hate having the canopy in my face, literally. Nose inches from the glass. No idea why, but it just bugs me silly. Never thought it would! Whereas after the first two hours in the 8, I do not even notice the roll bar. It bothered me at first, but you have room to MOVE. So you end up ignoring it. Better still, you can put things up there on the glare shield temporarily and that comes in quite handy! SPACE. SPACE is good. The 4 left me feeling boxed in. Visually Stunning mind you, but boxed.

So I bit the financial bullet and got the 8 instead. But only after several considerations that again, are based in perspective and subjective view and on what you plan on doing with the thing:

Performance. Its a wash. Both the 4 and the 8 are amazing aircraft and both perform well in all aspects a sport pilot can ask for. Speed, climb, cruise, basic acrobatics, alls good.

Passenger Comfort. If you plan on flying the spousal unit around, she better have room to get comfy or you will be misersable on every X-country. That or she just won't go...hmm....ok...need to think that one some more! HA. Anyway, the 8 is so large I can literally rest my arms on the sill, relax and sleep back there. So she has no room, lol, to complain. I spent 6 hours in the back of an 8 a few months ago and was never, not once, uncomfortable. Thats saying a lot.

Storage space. Neither have accessable in-flight baggage areas, so room for charts and all the other garbage we take along is a plus. Both have places too stuff gear, but the 8 seemed a bit better. Leg and shoulder room seems massive by comparison. Even the glare shield on the 8 is useful. Panel realestate is a little better on the 8 as well. I agree with the comment about "feet together" in the 8, but its not bad. I totally agree the stick is too friggin low on the 8. On me it works however, because I just rest my hand on my leg and only need to move my wrist. Didn't like it at first, but again, it was totally subjective. Its far different from the Luscombe, where your entire arm is free and flapping. Now I am really starting to like it.

Flight envelope. If you plan on flying a fat friend in the back, get the 8. We've had 230 pounders in the 8s with no issues at all. I've heard more than one -4 pilot complain about CG with 160 pound (or heavier) guys in the back. That was one of the biggest things I didn't like about the 4. All my buddies are 6 foot and 180 to 220. Easy fit in the 8, but some friends with 4s complain about aft CGs and a "balancing on the head of a pin" feel in the 4 with a real fatty in the back.

Conversely, if you plan on flying alone most of the time, the 4 still makes a ton of sense. Cost a heck of a lot less for starters. And its not THAT small inside.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.