RV-4 or RV-8

  • Total voters
    55
panhandler1956

panhandler1956

Well Known Member
Sorry I am a newbie and I know this has been posted before. But I am having a really tough time deciding on which airplane to build. I was really set on the -4, but now I'm not so sure. I am 160lbs and 5'8" and my wife is 110lbs so I definatley fit in the -4.
I guess I should mention that I plan to use it mostly for fun, not alot of XC or IFR but some, will be doing acro and formation work. Here what I have learned but I need more of a push (I have flown neither airplane):

RV-4
-better handling (according to some)
-better looks (sorry guys, imho)
-slightly cheaper build? Although harder with only wings pre-punched
-slightly better short field performance (might be an issue if I try to use my farm as home base)



RV-8
-better cross-country mount
-easier to set-up IFR (more panel space)
-more baggage
-easier build (pre-punched)
-better re-sale (although I plan to keep it)
-slightly faster (but looks slower - sorry -8 guys)
-seems like more builders out there, so you would like have more support
-not likely to be abandoned by the factory during my build time as I plan to buy the kit in sections $$$$.

I hate to spend 5 yrs buiding a std build and find out that I should went with the latest and greatest design!

Brent Owens
Columbus, OHIO
 
Last edited:
Brent,

I'm building a -9 so I don't have a dog in this fight. Still, I'll give you my $.02 worth.

It comes down to what type of flying you like to do. If you are really want to do acro and weekend local flying, the -4's the ticket.

If you like to do some acro and want to take longer trips with someone in the back, get the -8.

My first RV ride was in the back of a -4 and I just didn't fit. 6' tall and 200 lbs. I was hunched over with my sholders squished forward for the flight and the pilot commented about the extra weight in the tail.

Speed and landing distances are so close I would call them a wash. The first depends on the engine and the second on the pilot.

Starting on my 3rd year of building the -9, which is supposed to be a better kit than the -8 (Note, I did not comment on the plane, only the quality of the kit as Van's continues to improve with each new model.), I can't imagine building a -3,4, or 6. My hat is off to those who did all that work.

I think that the hours spent building the early kits are now spent in the panel and finishing. That's why there are more DVFR -6's than DVFR -7's. Again, IMHO.

Best of luck.
 
Hi Brent,

My advice would be to go with the -8 if you're buying a new kit. I can't believe Van's still sells the -4, but it looks like they do. I sure bet they don't sell many these days.

I don't think there are any significant advantages to the -4, except for the looks that you seem to prefer.

You mentioned resale, but I don't think you mentioned it with enough emphasis. If you take a quick look at Barnstormers, you'll see that the average -8 is being sold for nearly double what the average -4 is selling for. You can see that there's not much difference in the price of the kits, and you DO get a lot of benefits for the extra money. Van's latest kits are really sweet!

With the resale in mind, if you would be happy with a -4, you can probably buy a nice one already flying, and for less than you'll spend on a new one. There are some real deals on unfinished projects as well, but beware of missing and damaged parts.

Good luck,
Rusty
 
Hey Brent,

The RV-4 is more fun to fly if you want to be 'part of the plane'. Everyone at Van's says this.
The RV-8 is MUCH easier to build and flies *mostly* like a RV-4.

Like others said....depends on what you want to do with it.

I'll finish with this....if Van's offered a completely match-drilled RV-4 I'd order a kit tomorrow.

b,
d
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure, but there may be some confusion regarding the differences between unpunched, prepunched and match-drilled.

The 4 has no holes at all except for the wing skins if I remember correctly. This means lots of time spent laying out holes and jigging EVERYTHING.

I believe that prepunched simply refers to holes in skins mostly, but things still need to be jigged.

Match-drilled means you can just cleco things together on a table and get to rivetting. This is a HUGE deal.

I recently got a peak at the plans for a 7 and the comparison to the plans for my 4 was pretty striking. However, the 4 IS the coolest rv, so if you're up to the task, go for it.
 
Brent - I made this decision last year. I went with the -4 and have no regrets. Havn't flown it yet though! Your query comes up from time to time so I have started collected my reasons together. You can read them at http://gikonwhy4.blogspot.com/ You will see runway length was important though, so is handling. Without the runway issue it would have beena trade between ease of build, and delight to fly.

There are a few things you need to know if you are going to build a -4 which no one tells you. I have tried to summarise those here http://gikoncnsdr.blogspot.com/ Look for the first entry dated 24 May.

Good luck with your decision!
Steve
#4478
G-IKON
UK
 
szicree said:
I'm not sure, but there may be some confusion regarding the differences between unpunched, prepunched and match-drilled.

The 4 has no holes at all except for the wing skins if I remember correctly. This means lots of time spent laying out holes and jigging EVERYTHING.

I believe that prepunched simply refers to holes in skins mostly, but things still need to be jigged.

Match-drilled means you can just cleco things together on a table and get to rivetting. This is a HUGE deal.

I recently got a peak at the plans for a 7 and the comparison to the plans for my 4 was pretty striking. However, the 4 IS the coolest rv, so if you're up to the task, go for it.
Click to expand...

Steve,
Thanks for that clarification, I was confused on that. I went to Van's website and I see what you mean. All my friends are saying -8, and based on this poll, I'm leaning that way. I am a first time builder, but I do have some experience restoring/re-building experimentals, but no metal experience so the -8 kit definately sounds more practical for me, heck maybe I should do the -7 -, just kiddin' - It's a nice airplane though (-7), actually prettier than the -8 im my opinion!!

Brent
 
Last edited:
RV8 vs. RV4

Some more points to consider:

RV8: cool slider canopy, wider range of engine choices, stronger landing gear

RV4: smaller (less hangar space), cheaper engine (320)

I personally would have built the RV3 if it had the matched hole or the QB option.

I think my next plane will be a twin: :)

francesecchi433pe.jpg
 
Amen on the prepunched -3!

rv8ch said:
Some more points to consider:

RV8: cool slider canopy, wider range of engine choices, stronger landing gear

RV4: smaller (less hangar space), cheaper engine (320)

I personally would have built the RV3 if it had the matched hole or the QB option.

I think my next plane will be a twin: :)

francesecchi433pe.jpg
Click to expand...


Man, this is one TINY airplane...the French "Cri-Cri" I think it's called. But it's missing something.....maybe the white flag on the tail. *rimshot*

Like I've told MANY Rv'ers and Van's folks directly, PRE-PUNCH THE RV-3 and you'll sell em by the dozens. I think Jay Pratt said a few years ago at LOE that he would, indeed, buy a dozen, build them and sell them like hotcakes.

As for the root question of this thread, the -8 is a tweaked and up-sized -4 that Van saw as being necessary to suit the modern man desiring a tandem airplane kit. I agree the -4 is a more mission specific airplane (pure sport flying) whereas the -8 suits the traveling mission much better, while still allowing acro.
 
szicree said:
I believe that prepunched simply refers to holes in skins mostly, but things still need to be jigged.

Match-drilled means you can just cleco things together on a table and get to rivetting. This is a HUGE deal.
Click to expand...

Not to be confused with "match-drilled", the standard -8 wings and emp is "match-hole" as Vans calls it. "RV-7/7A and RV-9/9A Standard Kits are completely matched-hole. RV-8/8A kits include matched-hole empennages and wings, along with pre-punched skins on the fuselage."

Yes it is easier to build than the -4, it's not quite as easy as clecoing things together and get to riveting. You have to cleco things together, match drill them, take everything back apart, deburr, dimple, prime if needed, clecko back together then get to riveting.

The fuse isn't match hole'd but the skins are prepunched. It must be jigged and drilled.

Building ANY airplane is a huge undertaking that is often down-played by those that have or are building. The -3 or -4 are for serious builders. My hat is off to those that have or are doing it.
 
Thanks for all your help! The -4 has always been "the" RV in my mind and I couldn't see how the -8 was replacing it (maybe not completely) but I never thought emails or Compact Disc would catch on either, but I was wrong and I am sure my sense of nostalgia for the -4 has been clouding my view of the -8. After looking at the facts and warming myself up to the "bolder" look of the -8 (some great pics on airliners.net) I think I am going for it. I like the looks of the -7, but I gotta play fighter pilot and the Mrs doesn't care which one I build.

Plan is to build and pay as I go, so the next several months will be studying the pre-view plans and getting the shop situated and tools collected for the emp kit that I'll order this fall.

Thanks again - this form is invaluable! More to come!

Brent O.
 
RatMan said:
The fuse isn't match hole'd but the skins are prepunched. It must be jigged and drilled.
Click to expand...

Also, the rumor mill over on the RV-8 section of this forum is that the fuselage may be match-hole'd in the near future - bonus!!! And a possible fastback tuttle deck option! :D

I have noticed after studying as many photos as I can find of the -8 that it reminds me of the DeHavilland Chipmunk, which is cool!! :cool:
 
Last edited:
RatMan said:
Building ANY airplane is a huge undertaking that is often down-played by those that have or are building.
Click to expand...

Boy, you sure got that right. When I started this thing I thought I'd have it flying within 6 months. That was in 1999!
 
My RV-4

At 6'2" 250 (hopefully a bit less soon) I still chose the 4, as there is no better looking RV. I'm snug but not uncomfortable and plan on cross country flights. I think the panel with careful work can fit a basic IFR configuration, using the center console configuration I've seen on many 4's.

What can I say, I love the RV-4.
 
Couple of points. The difference in handling between the -4 and -8 is imperceptible. Also, I would challenge anyone to show a difference in takeoff performance between the two with equal weight and power. The -4 may have a slight top speed advantage.

The structure and outward appearance of the two makes them almost apples and oranges. Well, red apples and golden delicious, anyway. Gear location, gear structure, cowl shape/profile, cockpit layout and dimensions, baggage arrangements, canopy configuration. Lots of differences.

If you think you might like the -8 *if* it was more attractive, then print a picture of one and post it somewhere you can see it occasionally for a week or so. I thought the same thing at first. It looked a little different. After a little while, it snapped. Now I really think it's a fantastic looking plane. With pseudo-WWII fighter colors, the -8s look really sharp! With about any colors, they look good.

If you like cheek cowls and are a standard FAA pilot size, then look at a -4.

Bryan -8, 830 hrs, -4, 40 hrs
 
make mine an -8

Ask yourself what you want your airplane to do. If sport flying is your mission, the -4 is perfect. Light ones are the nicest flying RV's. If you want to load up your stuff (including your wife) the -8 is more logical. With it's front and rear baggage compartments, CG is a non issue. The -8 also has 10 gal more gas. The -8 would be faster to build, but not much. They are all still alot of work. Someone else commented about resale, the -8's have it (both will cost close to the same to build with similair equip). Either way you win. Good luck.
 
8/7 looks

After looking at the facts and warming myself up to the "bolder" look of the -8 (some great pics on airliners.net) I think I am going for it. I like the looks of the -7
Click to expand...

interesting you should say that. i'm building a 7a -- planning on doing a fair amount of flying with my wife, but i've been thinking about when/if i ever finish this, starting on an 8. i like the looks of the 8 (td) better than the 7(a).

john
 
Well stick a fork in me, I'm done. I had the pleasure of getting an up close look at Glen Miller's beatiful RV-8 and I'm hooked. I still love the idea of the -4 and I will often opine about what it might have been to build and own this little rocket, but I am convinced that the -8 will be more suitable for my missions.

Thanks for all those who have helped me and especially to Glen who took time out of his day to open up his hangar to a complete stranger.

I think it is testimate to Van's genious that the airplanes are all designed so well that none of them are set apart, they all do what they do brilliantly.


Hopefully I don't change my mind yet again before I place my order. ;)
 
gofast

Well... it's like this.. I need a fast x-country machine for the least amount of money possible.. I'm not looking at resale.... I can built it to fit me... and hopefully make it IFR.. -4 for me.... I have time.. not money...ps I think building a 4 would make an excellent college project for a thesis.... so here is the wishlist.. fastback.. pressure-recovery pants...tall gear..any and all go-fast fairings... vans builder cost estimator says -4= 41-50K -8 =45-54k.... The less fuel per mile and the less cost of hanger sharing.. and the temptation to spend massive amounts of money on the free space in the panel call out -4...to keep the cost down. I can do a -4 for 30... I'm darn sure.. maybe I'm wrong but I cannot do a -8 for that....
Brian/....ps looking for input!!!
 
cost

Well... you are absolutely right sir.... I actually ment to say 30ish... but I'm thinking 34... give or take. I not above begging or trading flight time for stuff..... I got good at groveling with a red-head... lots of practice... lots of connections too.....I saw an article about a -6a done for 25.... dont believe it myself... I could be wrong. I'm an army crewchief... I'm not above used... as long as it's mechanically correct..(and legal).. It's good enough for me... although I would paint it if it were a pastel or "girly"color.... Id rather fly a pink airplane rather than no airplane.... (wanted... good woman with airplane... send pic of airplane)
Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.