Looks cool. But worth it?

I bet it looks great in the air. But I wonder if it is really worth the extra weight and work.

Also, I am curious about the weight and balance. seems the wheels are set back even further, and I wonder how that would be on ground handling/landing. Pretty wide track too, x-winds could be a little spicy.

The reworking of the fuel system must have been a nightmare. The added weight? Reinforcing the spar for the gear attachment? I bet at best the performance is a wash.

I'm not a builder yet, but to my novice eye, it looks expensive, and the return minimal. . .

But then again, it looks cool! Add a Fastback and a showplanes cowl. . . hmmm!:p
 
I agree completely, but I will say it makes me think "Mustang" and "how cool" looking when you see it:D
Does anyone know anything about this plane
 
FLYPTV said:
I bet it looks great in the air. But I wonder if it is really worth the extra weight and work.
Click to expand...
A few years back a German guy build an RV-4RG after completing a straight leg RV-4.

If I remember correctly the RG was 80 lbs heavier and only 4 knots faster. Somewhere I read about all the changes he had to make to the spar (for the landing loads), to the fuel tank (relocation), wing (to fit the wheels and keep twisting loads under control), and more.

Here is an old thread on the subject but it looks like the links are dead.
 
Also bigger engine.

N941WR said:
If I remember correctly the RG was 80 lbs heavier and only 4 knots faster.
Click to expand...

And if I remember correctly, he also added considerable HP to attain this small speed increase.
 
There is something special about development

Anyone capable of doing this is certainly aware of the risks and the enormity of the task. I can only envy the builder if he kept everything under control in creating this new airplane. Kind of like what someone did with a "Playboy" years ago I'm told. It is certainly a smaller task starting with a proven airframe than developing a new retractable geared airplane from scratch. I noticed the wide track and I believe that will improve the ground handling not make it worse. I consider a 4 kt increase in top speed a monumental achievement.

Bob Axsom
 
That's Why They Are Called Experimentals!

Wonderful freedom we have!
 
FLYPTV said:
The reworking of the fuel system must have been a nightmare.
Click to expand...

I had the same thought, then figured I would just put the tanks outboard, gear inboard where the tanks usually go.

Still, lots of engineering to be done.

But, as said before, COOL:cool:
 
If this builder had gone the nose gear route, would it have been an RV-8ARG?

(Why do I wonder such things)

Bob Kelly
 
Retract RV-4

The hangar next to me houses a retractable RV-4. The conversion looks pretty similar to the RV-8 pictured, but the leading edge is cranked forward a little on the 4.


I have a similar engine and identical prop on my RV-8. He has high-compresison pistons and a cld air intake, while I have EI. I have an easy 4-5 knot speed advantage at similar weights, and much better CHTs and oil temps.

The airplane really looks good airborne though ;-)

The gear system has absorbed a lot of maintenance hours. The main gear are also a little too far aft than would be ideal, requiring a light touch on the brakes (The airplane has had at least three different props on it during its life). Bob reports that is is "idiot simple" to land with the oleo struts and widely spaced main gear.
 
Last edited:
James,

Thanks for posting the pictures!

I might add that the German RV-4RG also has a retractable tail wheel w/ gear doors, thus adding more weight but a cleaning up the airframe even more.
 
How about fixed gear from the wing?

I liked the look of the gear, but not the maintenance and poor speed.
How about mounting fixed gear to the wing, outside of the prop arc.
if the gear legs were 90 degrees to the wing spar (for minimum drag) it would have better landing characteristics, be faster and look better. Check the Radial Rocket.
However, you would need to hold up the fuse on saw horses if you took the wings off, and the design change would be massive.
The only airframe change I've made was the famous 'John Ammeter fuel pickup mod', which exempts my plane from all the mandatory fuel pickup notices.
 
The next step

I'm thinking of a speed mod for single leg races of 300 nautical miles where I take off with a fall away dolly and land on a belly skid with the prop stopped horizontally.

Bob Axsom
 
RV 8"R"

I have some inside knowledge I guess on the retract 8 pictured in the Rvator. My father, Paul Lefever in Farmington, Missouri built it. It is his third completed RV, all of which came after rebuilding a Comanche, a Beech Musketeer (sp?) and building a new Stein Skybolt.

He obviously is a serial builder and is enjoying retirement. He always wanted a retract airplane........and now loves Vans kits so he went this route. As usual he had the airframe done in a year or less and spent the next 3 years building multiple different gear systems until he got the rig he liked.

Yes there were weight and balance questions, yes the tanks were moved outboard to make room for gear boxes, but most importantly the gear had to move back and then up.....so that the wheels actually set out in front of the wing when extended and sitting on the ground.......thus not altering the CG too much. They are hydraulic lifting with the exception of the inboard side of the gear doors which are for the time being manual. (he insisted on inboard and outboard gear doors so the gear is completely enclosed when retracted)

Yes it was worth the time and effort (to him as a dream plane) but not likely to most of us that are in a hurry to get'em flying.

PS. He received his RV12 wing kit last week......expects to build it as designed but you never know.
 
Inquiring Minds would like to know....

SHIPCHIEF said:
....... The only airframe change I've made was the famous 'John Ammeter fuel pickup mod', which exempts my plane from all the mandatory fuel pickup notices.
Click to expand...

For the uninitiated, what is a "John Ammeter fuel pickup mod" :confused:
 
Thanks for checking on

Amazing looking 8!!! If you get chance I would love to see some more pics of it.
Thanks Again!






rvamateur said:
I have some inside knowledge I guess on the retract 8 pictured in the Rvator. My father, Paul Lefever in Farmington, Missouri built it. It is his third completed RV, all of which came after rebuilding a Comanche, a Beech Musketeer (sp?) and building a new Stein Skybolt.

He obviously is a serial builder and is enjoying retirement. He always wanted a retract airplane........and now loves Vans kits so he went this route. As usual he had the airframe done in a year or less and spent the next 3 years building multiple different gear systems until he got the rig he liked.

Yes there were weight and balance questions, yes the tanks were moved outboard to make room for gear boxes, but most importantly the gear had to move back and then up.....so that the wheels actually set out in front of the wing when extended and sitting on the ground.......thus not altering the CG too much. They are hydraulic lifting with the exception of the inboard side of the gear doors which are for the time being manual. (he insisted on inboard and outboard gear doors so the gear is completely enclosed when retracted)

Yes it was worth the time and effort (to him as a dream plane) but not likely to most of us that are in a hurry to get'em flying.

PS. He received his RV12 wing kit last week......expects to build it as designed but you never know.
Click to expand...
 
John Ammeter Fuel pickup mod

Sure, PCHunt!;
John Ammeter is an early RV-6 builder who was a DAR. I didn't know him, but I called him from a DAR list for the Seattle area.
He came out to look at my progress, and I told him that I was not making any airframe mods except for one, fuel pick ups I saw in the "Best of RVator".
I think it was Best of 16 years of RVator.
He took a look at it and laughed, telling me it was his mod! What a laugh! The real paradox is...that he works for Seattle City Light he's in charge of ammeters! so I understand his nickname is John AMPMETER.
ANYWAY;
You build an extra thick piece (.25" plate) that nests into the lower trailing edge of the inboard fuel tank rib. Drill and tap it NPT for the wire mesh finger strainer sold by Aircraftspruce etc. and rivet it to the rib with proseal on assembly of the tank. It cannot move out of place. You can remove the fuel quick-drain fitting and inspect it thru the drain hole. It is not for aerobatic flight.
I think it improves the integrity of the seal at the back lower corner, it adds strength and contact area for proseal, like the nose bracket at the front of the same rib.
I'm using fuel injection, so the fuel return goes back into the tank at the bulkhead fitting intended for the original fuel pick up. the return fuel discharges straight down, and has the mandatory anti-rotation bracket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.