[MarcoAviator]

I am still on the fence about this ... I am a long way from even ordering the fuselage so I got a lot of time to think about but I thought I would start getting the opinions of current builders/owners so I have something to mull over.

Well then ...

Taildragger?

Nosedragger?

Which one are you guys building/flying? Which one do you prefer and why?

 

[Brian130]

Haha. J/k. I've been waiting weeks to use that icon and this seemed like as good a place as any.

 

[RScott]

My RV will be a nose dragger for only 2 reasons: Cheaper insurance and better resale value. If I were rich and money wasn't a concern, I would do a taildragger simply because they look better and I have more tail wheel time than nosewheel, so I am comfortable with that config. Also, there seems there may be a problem with the nosewheel versions flipping.

 

[Ironflight]

Welcome!

Welcome aboard Marco!

I think what Brian is trying to say is that this board has some relaly good and powerful search capabilities. Do a few searches for "taildragger", and you'll find that there have been a few previous posts on this "debate".

There's actually a gold mine of info, and it will give you lots fo things to consider....read on!

Paul

Where DO people get those cool Icons?!

 

[donahuedc]

dead horse

Funny Brian!
Everyone has to make his own decision. I like taildraggers. I own a J3 and used to own a Luscombe. They're fun, and there is the extra challenge in each landing.
This February, we went to the RV fly-in in Richmond Ky in a friend's Mooney. There was a strong, gusty crosswind. We saw someone groundloop his RV4. Tore it up pretty good. I thought, 'I could do that'.
I finally decided on a 9A. I want to use it to travel. And when I get there, I don't want to have the extra worry of trying to land it under possible extreme wind conditions. Ordered the kit recently.
Still, I think I'll keep the cub for pretty day local flying. Taildraggers sure are fun.

 

[Brian130]

I think what Brian is trying to say is that this board has some relaly good and powerful search capabilities. Do a few searches for "taildragger", and you'll find that there have been a few previous posts on this "debate".

Yes, Marco. I absolutely meant no offense. Just being the village comedian... or is that idiot? Whichever.

Here's a few links to past threads for ya.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=74&highlight=taildragger
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=2676&highlight=taildragger
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=2870&highlight=taildragger

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Suggested reading

Marco: There are few debates that are just well you know,
beating a dead horse. Some suggest questions not to ask:
(better know as the never ending debates)

What kind of primer to use?
What kind of canopy is better, tip or slider?
Taildragger vs. Nosedragger?


Not that they're not great questions, just that the volumn of info out there is so massive. As was suggested the search engine works well. The other inside joke is they result in passionate debate. People really care about the color or type of primer they use apparently.

Great sources are search of the web, this site, Van's web site and builders web sites. This should be more info than you ever wanted to know. The Links on Van's web site has lots of builder sites which are good.

I will give you some great advice, Go fly a tail dragger. I assume you don't have taildragger time. Spend a few $100 and get the endorsement. Combine it with a biennial flight review. Hey they are all planes when they fly. Yes taxi, takeoff and landing are a little different.

To answer your question: I am building a RV-7 (taildragger), Slider and used two part epoxy primer, Lesonal by AKZO Nobel, prime minimal parts or as required, color grey. My last RV was a RV-4 and I would not build a nose dragger myself, but that is just my preference.

My last advice is do your research, but in the end you decide and build what YOU WANT. Most of these issues are personal preference. There are pros and cons, but depending on how you weight one may clearly be better to you. On the other hand it may be a toss up. You got to decide. Of course flying a RV is the best thing you can do if you have not. See if you can get some demo rides in different RV's.

Welcome aboard George

crack that whip
give the past the slip
step on a crack
break your momma's back
when a problem comes along
you must whip it
before the cream sits out too long
you must whip it
when something's going wrong
you must whip it
now whip it
into shape
shape it up
get straight
go forward
move ahead
try to detect it
it's not too late
to whip it
whip it good
when a good time turns around
you must whip it
you will never live it down
unless you whip it
no one gets their way
until they whip it
i say whip it
whip it good

Devo

 

[daniel_fisher]

Devo, thought that song was left in the '80's...

... cough cough* taildragger, cough cough* ... In all seriousness, fly both, pick your favorite. It's as simple as that.

DF

 

[MarcoAviator]

Yes, Marco. I absolutely meant no offense. Just being the village comedian... or is that idiot? Whichever.

Here's a few links to past threads for ya.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=74&highlight=taildragger
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=2676&highlight=taildragger
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=2870&highlight=taildragger

I did search in this forum for taildragger debates .. and I came up with nothing ..

but then again, I searched in THIS FORUM, the RV 8 forum ... not in the whole forum.

I am not really interested in a generic debate about taildraggers vs nosedraggers, or what other builders are doing with other RVs ... I am interested in the opinion of (specifically) of RV8 builders.

I guess I should have been more specific ... sorry about that.

What I really meant to ask is:

RV8? or RV8A?

It's the shape of the RV8 that I am interested in.

See, here's my conundrum: I chose the RV8 partially because it reminds me of the sexiest plane ever to fly: the P-51 Mustang.

Yes I know it's a long shot but the RV8 is the fastest, cheapest and closest looking (to me at least) to a real P-51 you can possibly find out there (not to mention that it's made by a manufacturer with a really good reputation: Vans). Plenty of mustang clones to go around but they just don't do justice to the Mustang and anyway, nothing makes me drool like the RV8 canopy.

Ok enough ... the RV8 looks like it's born to be a taildragger. I can't imagine an RV8 to be anything other than a taildragger.

But (big but here) taildraggers scare the living crap out of me.

Yes I do have some time in them, enough to be scared of them and I have enough taildragger pilot friends that pretty much told me the same story: sooner or later the taildragger will do something bad to you. And sometimes it will bite a chunk off one of your buttcheeks real hard (I have seen it happen first person to someone at my airport: ground loop and down in the ditch parallel to the runway. Not nice).

So I spend 3 years building a beatiful looking airplane and one day a great gust whips the tail end off from right under me. And the plane is trashed.

If I had my own little aeronca, or cub ... and a ground loop ripped it to shreds ... I wouldn't care. I would walk out of it, collect the insurance and give up taildragging ... and just fly more "boring" planes.

But if that happens to my "precious"??? ... gollum, gollum ... then what?

RV8 ... cool looking, and yet at risk of committing suicide on the runway

or

RV8A ... boring looking and almost an insult to the RV8 shape ... and yet less at risk of voiding 3 years of building efforts.

The thing is ... I feel that if I built the damn thing, I wouldn't want it to be wasted in one moment of distraction or a trick of nature. The allure of the "safe" path is strong.

I was interested in the opinion of the RV8-ers out there about this ...

That is the question that is bugging me right now.

(Can you even fly basic aerobatic manouvers with a nosedragger? I don't see why not but ... I have never seen it done either.)

So ... sorry if I had to stink up the place beating horse corpses ... I just thought my question was a tad more unique.

PS: and no offense taken by the way

 

[Jekyll]

P-51 the sexiest? Now you're really starting a fight! Nothing beats a Spitfire! If I could figure out how to do the wing tips, tail and canopy, I'ld buy a 8 and modify it as a Spit

Jekyll

 

[rv8ch]

Get more training

But (big but here) taildraggers scare the living crap out of me.

Get more training. Don't land in conditions that you can't handle. Concentrate anytime you are taking off or landing.

Bicycles scared the crap out of my 5 year old, but a couple of months later, she's ready to race BMX. All it took was a bit of training.

 

[MarcoAviator]

P-51 the sexiest? Now you're really starting a fight! Nothing beats a Spitfire! If I could figure out how to do the wing tips, tail and canopy, I'ld buy a 8 and modify it as a Spit

Jekyll

The P-51 is just my personal preference. It may be the sexiest to me and not to another.

Totally subjective ... and yes ... the Spit is one beautiful kite in its own right.

 

[TShort]

Get more training. Don't land in conditions that you can't handle. Concentrate anytime you are taking off or landing.

Ditto.

I am about 8 hours or so into the TW endorsement / insurance requirement for the 170. I also have a little fear / hesitancy about taildraggers, but I really want to learn to fly them well and I am building an -8. My instructor has been flying TW airplanes for years; he has a C-140 and an RV-6 and flies comfortably in any conditions. I am always amazed at his demeanor during training - I have had some swervy landings, and he never gets shaken - never even grabs the controls. Just sits there and says "keep it back, all the way back" - once you're done flying and the TW is stuck to the ground the airplane is very controllable. All the talk about tailwheel airplanes makes people think they are these terribly unstable machines that are ready to jump up and bite you in the ass with no warning, when in reality they are controllable once you know the proper technique.
Take your time, get good training with an experienced instructor, then gradually build up to more and more complicated conditions. There's no hurry - all flying is enjoyable!! Build what you want. You will be unhappy if you don't. So what if you have to ease into flying it, what's a few more calm summer evenings of flying around and practicing before you get to the heavy crosswinds?
I agree about the -8. No offense to the -8A builders, it is personal preference. I just like the way the TW airplane looks.

Thomas
-8 wings

 

[Ironflight]

Great Post!

Marco,

I do beleive that your long post captures the entire essence of the "debate" for potential -8 and -8a drivers. I have rarely seen it presented in such simple terms - yes, just looking at the lines of the ship, the -8 was born to be a taildragger! It's art, it's sujective, but that is how it appears to me.....

Now I understand your dilemma much better - can you fly it? The bottom line is that I have found Danny King's advice to be true - the -8 is probably one of the most forgiving taildraggers I have flown! Like any airplane, it CAN bite you, but only if you don't give it your attention. On the scale of difficulty, I put this one particularly low.

This is something that you kind of have to take on faith, unless you have a friend with an -8 that can take you flying - and let you fly it - enough for you to discover it yourself. But if that is your only big concern, then I would encourage you to build the machine of your dreams. You are already being cautious, and that is the right attitude to fly it safely.

Paul

 

[flybill7]

Taildragger or Nosedragger

> RV8 ... cool looking, and yet at risk of committing suicide on the runway


I learned to fly on a C150 nosedragger but then got some tailwheel training and shifted over to taildragger for the last 400 hours (Corben Baby Ace/Citabria). Never had a problem. Let me just say that you can get into trouble just as quick with a nosedragger as a taildragger. I read these posts that make it sound a taildragger landing is comparable to landing on an aircraft carrier at night and it is so far from reality I can't believe it. Yes, taildraggers require a little more skill and attention than nosedraggers, but what's wrong with that? Avweb just came out with a good column on taildraggers. Understand the pros and cons of each, but the implication that taildraggers are dangerous is bogus; don't let it be a factor in your decision.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191861-1.html

 

[gpiney]

Marco,

Since you live in NJ, hop over to Andover-Aeroflex and get your tailwheel endorsement. They will take the 'Mystery' out of the tailwheel. Even Harrison Ford went for training there. You will learn what the rudder is really for and you have to 'fly' the plane till you come to a stop. Money well spent. And it qualifies for a BFR.

Greg Piney
RV-8 2547
Empennage inventoried

 

[gmcjetpilot]

RV-8's are RV's to?

I did search in this forum for taildragger debates .. and I came up with nothing ..

but then again, I searched in THIS FORUM, the RV 8 forum ... not in the whole forum.

I am not really interested in a generic debate about taildraggers vs nosedraggers, or what other builders are doing with other RVs ... I am interested in the opinion of (specifically) of RV8 builders. PS: and no offense taken by the way

Oh why didn't you say so, Sorry . Really the RV-8 is so different that "generic debate" does not apply??? ;-) If you take the time to read it all, I think you will find relevant and useful info.

What do you want to know? So if a RV-4/6(A)/7(A)/9(A) pilot gives their opinion it holds less sway than a RV-8 builder? Really.

I don't get it. The (RV-8) wings are the same, the nose gear is the same, they are built...the same, the flight controls, are the same...... The biggest difference the RV-8 has besides the seating config is the main gear uses a flat spring main gear (aka Cessna), verses the round spring gear (aka Steve Wittman style, used on some Cessna's and many other planes).

I personally have over a 1000 hours in RV's (most in T/G's). Plus I have helped a few nose draggers get checked out (I have a few CFI ratings). Unfortunately none in the RV-8, so I can't help you, I guess.

I think if your read the "generic debate" and take the advice of flying a taidragger (any: Citabria, Cub, Luscombe, Stension, Aeronca, T-6, Stearman....), it could help. It can't hurt, but hey it's not spacific to the RV-8.

The problem no one will likely let you fly their RV-8 from the front. I would point out the RV-8 is just a plane and shares a lot in common with most of the RV line. As far as operations (taxi, takeoff, landing) there is little difference if any from any RV. Working with insurance companies and checking out RV'ers in different models, they don't usually make a big issue of the differnt models. Meaning if you have time in a RV-4 they accept that towards a RV-6 for example. Or if you check a pilot out in a RV-7 that is acceptable for the RV-8 (although a few underwriters balk at that). Giving dual in a tandem (RV-4/8) is problematic, especially if there is not full dual controls.


Specifically taildraggers (all DC-3 to Cub) have similar characteristics; some are little more sensitive (fast); Some have less control authority at slow speeds, but all RV taildraggers are on the docile Piper Cub side, very controllable, not on the Pitts side. All RV's fly very much alike with small differences. I have not flown an RV-8 so I don't know, but I have flown RV-4, RV-6, RV-7 and about 7 other differnt taildraggers (I listed above), and the RV's "conventional gear" (yes it means taildragger) are the easiest to fly of all that I have experienced, next to the Cub, but the Cub has funky heal brakes. I would expect the RV-8 is no differnet than any other RV.

PS: and no offense taken by the way. Good Luck with your specific search for RV-8 info. I would say if you anguish over this, you sound like a Trike guy. Do you worry about your landings? Know thy self. If you have anxiety about flying a taildragger in anyway, with out further training you can't make an intelligent (safe) decision. If you only know how to fly tricycle gear and don't want to learn how to fly a taildragger, than the decision is made for you. Again good luck.

George ATP, CFI (inst/me)

 

[RV7Guy]

From a newby TD pilot

First, I agree with Paul that the 8 NEEDS to be TD. I think all the RV's look better as a TD.

Okay, 2007 hours of helicopter time, 1400 FW and NO tail time when I began building the 7. I was fortunate to have a couple of CFI's that live in Airpark with TDers and one with a 7. I got about 6 hours of dual with them and then went to Mike Seager for Transition Training in the 7. Got a few more hours of dual with some friends and a great refresher in my friends 7 before flying mine. I didn't do the first couple of hours in mine but when I did fly it, I was confident.

With those thoughts in mind, I fly carefully, lock in my approach speeds and remember the basics. I have been working up the crosswind experience. At my airport we have crosswinds fairly consistently. I have flow with varying degrees of crosswinds to build experience.

I have found the RV to be a very forgiving aircraft for tailwheel flying. If they weren't we would be hearing of ground loop issues across the world. Hundreds of trouble free hours are flown daily with minimal problems.

Fly with confidence in the coolest looking taildraggers on the planet, the RV!!!!!

 

[jcoloccia]

I have enough taildragger pilot friends that pretty much told me the same story: sooner or later the taildragger will do something bad to you.

Are you hanging out with John Wayne? ..."A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do". LOL...sheesh. It's just an airplane. People who quote stuff like this are just trying to bolster their own ego, i.e. "Look at me, I'm a real man, I tame this firebreathing dragon everyday, and I laugh in the face danger." If they feel that way, why are they still flying taildraggers? I guess it's part of the whole "laugh in the face of danger" thing

There is nothing about the TD or ND debate (groundlooping, flipping, whatever) that can't be easily solved with a little training.

Here are some interesting quirks as I understand them. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong:

In the rv-7, the gear weldment for the -A is annoyingly just forward of the seats...i.e. they're always in the way. In the RV-8, the gear weldment for the taildragger version is now annoyingly under the seat...the -A has it further back and is no factor.

The RV-7 is lighter than the RV7-A....not by much, but it is. The RV-8 is HEAVIER than the RV-8A. Somebody back me up on this, but it boils down to something like you have to add a lot of structure for the -8 maingear, but you still have to keep around all the structure that would have attached the -8A main gear. Something like that, anyhow.

Personally, I'm building a TD. I feel they're a bit more durable, simpler and just plain cooler looking than the ND. Also, most of my time is in a TD, so it's my comfort zone. Find your own comfort zone, build whatever turns you on and ignore all the rhetoric.

 

[briand]

Funny Brian!
I want to use it to travel. And when I get there, I don't want to have the extra worry of trying to land it under possible extreme wind conditions. QUOTE]


You can always pick another runway/airport with more favorable wind conditions. Sure, you may have to drive another 10 miles or so but at least you have the airplane you want.

I have put a lot of thought into this recently (I just faxed my RV-8 fuse order last week) and figure if I return from a trip and my home airport is too X-windy then I will go to another one. Its very common here for it to be windy all day and then be calm as can be in the evening. So I land my plane at a different ariport and go get it at night (most of the time).

 

[szicree]

People who quote stuff like this are just trying to bolster their own ego, i.e. "Look at me, I'm a real man, I tame this firebreathing dragon everyday, and I laugh in the face danger."

Right on target. It's NO BIG DEAL!

 

[briand]

never mind pic won't post.

 

[briand]

[URL=http://img404.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crash21jv.jpg][/URL]



[URL=http://img424.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crash12xv.jpg][/URL]


Not trying to scare you.

 

[Walt]

Like someone said above...

I built my 7A to fly and have the least amount of worry with if I have crosswinds to deal with when I get somewhere. Just a couple of days ago I departed 52F and winds were direct crosswind at about 10-15k with gusts. I noted at least one of the local experienced TD guys returned after departing rather quickly due to the strong winds, canceled their lunch trip and returned. I elected to depart and the wife and I went down to Mustang Beach for lunch (this is a great place to go). When we returned the winds were 28 with gusts to 38K about 30 degrees off runway heading. 52F is not a great airport for high winds, trees on the approach end with hangers close to the runway can create a real interesting experience sometimes. I was prepared to have to go around and go north to Gainsville where the runway was into the wind with no obstructions to create turbulance on the approch. Anyway, no flaps and got her down without to much problem, a little hairy but a safe landing. The airport was deserted and I doubt very seriously that a TD could have made this landing! Build for looks or build to fly, your choice, but I'm glad I build the Nose Dragger!

 

[jcoloccia]

Not trying to scare you.

If you're going to blast stuff like this out, why not try compiling some statistics on the percentage of taildraggers damaged in groundloops vs. the percentage of trikes damaged by collapsing nose gears or flipping over? That would be a lot more meaningful than a random picture of some poor guys plane on the side of a runway (is that Randy's, btw?)

 

[rv8ch]

Not trying to scare you.

Read the whole story here: http://www.romeolima.com/RV8/Flying.htm#The final chapter BTW, Randy is building another tail dragger.

...I was prepared to have to go around and go north to Gainsville where the runway was into the wind with no obstructions to create turbulance on the approch. Anyway, no flaps and got her down without to much problem, a little hairy but a safe landing. The airport was deserted and I doubt very seriously that a TD could have made this landing!...

That's what you sometimes have to do with a tail dragger - land at another airport if things are too windy where you planned to land. I guess it's no different than if you fly IFR and the airport you want to go to is below minimums. If you must get there, drive or fly commercial!

 

[TShort]

I built my 7A to fly and have the least amount of worry with if I have crosswinds to deal with when I get somewhere. Just a couple of days ago I departed 52F and winds were direct crosswind at about 10-15k with gusts. I noted at least one of the local experienced TD guys returned after departing rather quickly due to the strong winds, canceled their lunch trip and returned. I elected to depart and the wife and I went down to Mustang Beach for lunch (this is a great place to go). When we returned the winds were 28 with gusts to 38K about 30 degrees off runway heading. 52F is not a great airport for high winds, trees on the approach end with hangers close to the runway can create a real interesting experience sometimes. I was prepared to have to go around and go north to Gainsville where the runway was into the wind with no obstructions to create turbulance on the approch. Anyway, no flaps and got her down without to much problem, a little hairy but a safe landing. The airport was deserted and I doubt very seriously that a TD could have made this landing! Build for looks or build to fly, your choice, but I'm glad I build the Nose Dragger!

I don't know if I would have made that landing with my experience (~300TT) in a nosedragger - would have had to see what it was like on final.
However, all the guys I know that are "old timer" / experienced tailwheel pilots will tell you that they are as comfortable in any conditions in the TW airplane as in a nosedragger. My CFI, Stu, flies his C140 in winds that I am not comfortable flying my 172 in, and it is no big deal to him. It is all in your comfort and experience level. The problem arises when the conditions exceed your experience and you either don't recognize it or don't have any other options (which really shouldn't happen with careful / proper planning). People crash nosewheel airplanes, run them off into the weeds due to loss of directional control from x-winds, etc as well - this is not unique to taildraggers.

Thomas
-8 wings

 

[gmcjetpilot]

As the wise man said

(Pitures ommited) Not trying to scare you.

And your point? Is the part where someone post the dozen RV-"A's" laying on their back? Please, those pictures are about as useful to the debate as this (click to enlarge):



To quote a wise philosopher and aviation genius, Captain Murphy: "S#@t Happens".

I fly taildraggers; truth be told, its easy, not requiring super human airmanship. Sorry to spill the truth dispelling the mystery. Second I know my x-wind capability is no less than a trike; Last I plan on flying my T/D's with complete confidence and full expectancy I'll do so incident/accident free, till I retire from flying. I'll let you know how it works out in 45-50 years. (If that is macho, sobeit. I call it competentency from lots or practice and experience. I also know any plane can kill you, so I pay attention in any plane.)

If you have ZERO TD time you just don't have the facts. Yes, Trikes should be easier than a TD, sure why not. However to say that makes T/D's hard or less safe is a stretch of logic like saying 1 + 1 = chair.

Also, truth be told there are some, just some, people who should not be flying at all, regardless of how may wheels are sticking out the bottom or gear configuration. Not all pilots have the same skill, with respect. In that case yes a trike may be a good choice. Nothing wrong with that. As I said know thy self. I taught almost full time as a CFI for 3 years way back when, and of all my students there was only one that could not get it (after three CFI's by the way).

Lets keep it to the facts and talk about what we do know. Yes its macho to say: "There are two kinds of taildragger pilots, those who have ground looped and those who will." That old saw is almost as old as aviation itself; Its a saying that's old, worn out, tired and trite. I think more trike drivers say this as a smug comment of self adulation for their "superior" gear configuration, than T/D pilots say it as a statement of superiority in skill.


Truth is some old T/G's of the day of old had small rudders, short stance and short coupled gear. They where less forgiving and would bite. That does not apply to the RV's. Slow speed, big effective rudder, you have every opportunity to keep it going straight. The opportunity to screw-up, well that's of your own device.

Also truth be told nose draggers can also ground loop, especially ones without nose wheel steering links. No, it's not a shot at RV model-A's, but it's true. We can take pot shots and discuss Pros and Cons till the cows come home, but there are advantages to each style of gear. To each his own.

Now don't get me mad or I will sic my dog on you: (click at own risk) My dog


George

Note: On Randy's ground loop I recall he modified the brake peddle and may
have been the cause of loss of directional control, inadvertent brake application.

 

[Stephen Lindberg]

For those of you with little or no tailwheel experince remember, we all had no tailwheel experience at some point. If your stick and rudder skills are only average you are plenty skilled enough to learn to handle a tailwheel airplane, provided you respect the airplane (you do that already, right?) and you get proper instruction. Ten hours of instruction in a Super Cub or Citabria is probably sufficient for most pilots to safely handle a tailwheel RV under favorable conditons. It will take you a few years and a few hundred hours of flying tailwheels under gradually more demanding conditions before you are capable of flying the airplane to its cross wind limits. It is not true that everyone eventually ground loops. The most proficient pilots know when to stay on the ground and that has prevented many a ground loop. Steve

 

[CraigC]

8 or 8A

Just my thoughts but I think the 8A looks sexy as hell in any military scheme only. The 8 looks great with either a WWII type fighter scheme or any other paint job that is simple or classy. As far as flying or handling, build what makes you happy. I wonder if a lot of the RV-8s I see for sale is someone wanting the 8A.

 

[MarcoAviator]

Thank you all for your replies. Very informative and gave me a lot of food for thought.

Brian130, I did read all the links you posted about previous debates of NW vs TW and they were a great source of info.

Oh why didn't you say so, Sorry . Really the RV-8 is so different that "generic debate" does not apply??? ;-) If you take the time to read it all, I think you will find relevant and useful info.

What do you want to know? So if a RV-4/6(A)/7(A)/9(A) pilot gives their opinion it holds less sway than a RV-8 builder? Really.

Sadly I realized just now that my previous statement in this regard was ... "offensive". I apologize for that. I didn't mean to put down or diminish the other RV builders. As far as I am concerned the crappiest looking RV out there looks 10 times better than the spam can I currently own (and that's saying a lot cause my plane is not that bad looking at all).

The fact is that in my mind (and this is just my opinion, I am not trying to convince anyone here), all other RVs look great in a tailwheel or with a nosewheel.

Every other RV with the exception of the tandem RVs. The RV8, IMO, looks "strange" with a nosewheel. The RV8 seems to be born to be a taildragger. The other planes are really a matter of preference and look totally fine (to me!!) wether they are front wheel or back wheel.

In fact, given the choice I'd probably go nosewheel on an RV7 or RV9 and thumb my nose at all those haughty, uppety Cirrus and Lancair and whatnots flying slower than me for 15 times the price!!! (just cracking another joke guys ... don't want to offend current Cirrus or Lancair pilots now).

Seriously ... I feel that tandem planes fit the bill more for tailwheel than nosewheel while side by side can go either way. Again, just my feeling.

Sorry if what I said came out as insulting to other RV builders. I didn't mean it. The RV8 is a special case to me ... because that's what I want ... ...

all RV taildraggers are on the docile Piper Cub side, very controllable, not on the Pitts side. All RV's fly very much alike with small differnces. I have not flown an RV-8 so I don't know, but I have flown RV-4, RV-6, RV-7 and about 7 other differnt taildraggers (I listed above), and the RV's "conventional gear" (yes it means taildragger) are the easiest to fly of all that I have experienced, next to the Cub, but the Cub has funky heal brakes. I would expect the RV-8 is no differnet than any other RV.

Glad to hear that!

 

[MarcoAviator]

Lets keep it to the facts and talk about what we do know. Yes its macho to say: "There are two kinds of taildragger pilots, those who have ground looped and those who will." That old saw is almost as old as aviation itself; Its a saying that's old, worn out, tired and trite. I think more trike drivers say this as a smug comment of self adulation for their "superior" gear configuration, than T/D pilots say it as a statement of superiority in skill.

Actually I knew it as "There's only two types of retractable gear pilots: those who have landed gear up and those who will".

Truth is some old T/G's of the day of old had small rudders, short stance and short coupled gear. They where less forgiving and would bite. That does not apply to the RV's. Slow speed, big effective rudder, you have every opportunity to keep it going straight. The opportunity to screw-up, well that's of your own device.

Not to pick on another pilot then but ... I did read the story behind that ground-looped RV8 ... and while it wasn't scary to read it was sobering. What do you think he did wrong? (if anything). Should he have used left brakes to stop the loop?

Now don't get me mad or I will sic my dog on you: (click at own risk) My dog

Great. Thanks. That will give me nightmares.

Note: On Randy's ground loop I recall he modified the brake peddle and may
have been the cause of loss of directional control, inadvertent brake application.

I'm intrigued. I understand the problem with the brake pedals but how did inadvertent brake application affect this? You mean he inadvertently applied right brakes? My understanding is that the tail was swinging to the left ... so left brakes should have stopped that ... right? Sounds to me like he didn't use the brakes and he should have ... am I wrong?

 

[Dgamble]

Sounds to me like he didn't use the brakes and he should have ... am I wrong?

That's the way I read it too. He, like me, had noticed that it was hard to apply any pressure to the rudder pedals without also applying a bit of brake. I notice it mostly on takeoff. He modified his rudder pedals with extensions that would allow rudder pressure without the unwanted brake pressure. When landing, he got hit with a gust of wind and didn't have enough rudder authority to catch it, and didn't have his feet positioned correctly to help the rudder out with some differential braking. I think it may have been a pretty hairy ride even in an 8A, what with the fully swivelling nose wheel and the suddeness of the gust.

BTW, my first taildragger was the RV-6 I bought already built last July 4th. I did 10 hours transition training and a couple of solo landings, then flew it to Oshkosh. I think the arrival at OSH was my 5th or 6th solo taildragger landing ever, and 250,000 witnesses can tell you that I didn't smear it all over runway 36R. I agree that the -8 aesthetically screams to be a TD - my dream build is an RV-8 painted in Spitfire livery.

 

[MarcoAviator]

Just a note ... to no one in particular.

I have landed Skyhawks during my training in wind conditions I shouldn't have landed at. The kind of "my knees are shaking and I swear I will never do this again" type of thing. (and I did it TWICE).

Since a couple of really BAD encounters with direct crosswinds back when I was a student (I am talking 25G30+ at 90 degrees type of crap), I promised myself to pay attention and avoid getting myself in that situation again.

I survived the experience, landed the planes without a scratch (fighting them all the way to the ground and all the way out of the runway, with an iron grip). But still, shouldn't have pushed it.

Yes, landing somewhere else is a good idea. Yes, being conservative when deciding if to challenge mother nature is also a good idea.

The thing is ... for what i know a nosewheel plane can be pushed harder and can land in (?) worse wind conditions than a taildragger, because that's my experience. I witnessed first hand how much of a brutal crosswind a nosedragger can take and still keep you right side up.

I may be wrong but for what I know a nosewheel plane can fight crosswinds that a tailwheel plane can't deal with. I say again, I may be wrong, but if that's the case then I need to make the choice if flying the (more cool looking) RV8 is worth having to make more defensive go/no-go decisions due to wind. That's what it all boils down to.

I do agree (as many of you already said), getting more tailwheel training is the best thing to do before making a decision regarding the RV8/RV8A ... i have a total of 4 hours in an Aeronca and not only I am not confident in it ... I am also very wary of it.

It's safe to say that I won't feel comfortable in a tailwheel until I experience a couple of good ass-kicking but successful crosswind landings and proved to myself that me and the plane can handle it just as safely as I can handle it in my Cherokee (within the safety envelope I allow for my direct crosswind tolerance these days that is around 12-13 knots and no more than 20kts peak gusts)

In any case ... that's where I am coming from ... thank you all for your input. Much appreciated.

 

[Ironflight]

Rudder Pedal Extensions

I built my -8 with rudder pedal extensions like Randy's after reading his web site extensively. I have found that I like them as much for comfort as anything else - they allow me to keep a more natural angle in my ankles when I have my heels on the floor (your fit may be different!).

While their original intent is to help prevent inadvertant brake pressure, and they do accomplish that, you need to also realize that with the "lugged" soles on most sneakers these days, it is very hard to simply "slide" your feet up the pedals - if you have your toes on the extensions, and need to get up on the brakes, you need to literally lift your feet, move them up, then reapply pressure. This can get exciting with the tail dancing around!

If I think I am going to need brakes on the landing (and I am flying off a narrow temporary runway right now), I will position them "up" on the pedals (where the balls of my feet are on the pivot point) on short final, and consciously remind myself not to apply brakes unless I need them.

I still like the extensions, and would do them again, but everything is a compromise, and that needs to be acknowledged.

Paul

 

[Bill Palmer]

RV-8/8A Objective Comparison

RV-8/8A Objective Comparison (Attempt #1, Apr. 11, 2006) (by Bill Palmer)

VAN'S PERFORMANCE SPECS FOR EQUAL AIRCRAFT (180hp w/Hartzell C/S Prop, Gross Weight):

Cruise Speed: (75% Power, 8000 ft.) 8: 203 mph; 8A: 201 mph (+2 mph for the 8 = 1% difference)

Rate of Climb: 8: 1650 fpm; 8A: 1600 fpm (+50 fpm for the 8 = 3% difference)

Stall Speed: 8: 58 mph; 8A: 58 mph (= no difference)

FLYING "FEEL:" Virtually Identical.

INSURANCE COST: The 8 is some percentage (+10%? = editor's guess at this point) more expensive than an equivalent 8A. Why? The 8's takeoff/landing accident rate is higher, for whatever reason (most likely pilot proficiency - - ed.). Note: The 8's higher insurance cost is mainly for hull insurance to correct, or compensate for, more frequent hull damage (losses) incurred in the takeoff/landing phase. Liability insurance cost is roughly equal for both aircraft. In other words, they are approximately equal as far as personal safety (bodily injury) is concerned. (Source: Bob Mackey, Vice President, Falcon Insurance Agency)

PILOT TRAINING/PROFICIENCY: 8 drivers should have tailwheel training, an endorsement, and reasonable experience (the more experience; the better). For those who have trained in the Champion series of taildraggers (or more difficult taildraggers), the 8 is a "No Brainer" (= very forgiving and honest as taildraggers go). The 8A also requires training, but no particular endorsement. The 8A's tri-gear is more familiar to those who trained in Cessna 150/172s and Cherokees, but the 8A's nose gear is substantially different (nonsteerable, castering nosewheel without a pneumatic shock or shimmy damper). The nose gear's breakout force (22 pounds) needs to be continually monitored and carefully adjusted to prevent shimmy. For those who have flown Tigers, Cheetahs, Cirrus, etc., with castering nosewheels, the 8A is a "No Brainer."

LANDING: The 8 is challenging in a strong, gusty crosswind, but, again, it is more forgiving than most taildraggers. Great for good grass runways. Okay for hard surface runways. The 8A has "Land-O-Matic" gear - - as long as you keep the nosewheel off as long as reasonably possible and monitor the nose gear's breakout force - - otherwise, all bets are off! The 8A is great for crosswind landings and hard surface runways. Okay for smooth, firm grass runways. Definitely avoid soft, rough runways with the 8A ( . . . and probably avoid these runways with the 8, for that matter. Main gears can dig-in, too.)

TOLERANCE OF BRAKE FAILURE: The 8 has a steerable tailwheel for maintaining directional control after rudder control becomes ineffective. It's still rolling (brake failure), but at least you can keep it pointed where you want to roll. The 8A has only the rudder. Below 25mph, or so, the 8A is rolling where it wants to go.

TAXI VISIBILITY: The 8 is "Adequate" with minor (or no) "S" turning required. The 8A is "Outstanding."

BACKSEATER: The 8 is a little more difficult to land for a "novice" (no tailwheel time) backseater (in the rare case of front-seat pilot incapacitation). The 8A has better forward visibility on the ground.

AVERAGE RESALE VALUE (for equally-equipped aircraft): Slightly in favor of the 8A (+5%? = editor's guess), but not much difference.

WALTER MITTY FACTOR: Definitely in favor of the RV-8. The 8 is configured like a P-51 and many airshow/competition airplanes. The 8A looks great, too, but it looks like an 8A rather than recalling romantic images of World War II fighters and modern aerobats as the 8 definitely does.

CONCLUSIONS: Both the RV-8 and RV-8A are great airplanes. They are both nimble fliers with the superb, responsive "RV Control Feel." They are both capable of sport aerobatics. They both climb "like scalded cats" compared to the average "factory spam can" with equal power. They both combine high cruise speeds with low stall speeds, a significant design achievement. They are both relatively "roomy" specifically compared to Van's RV-4 and RV-7/7A. If you imagine yourself as (or you are!) a fighter or aerobatic pilot, the 8 is probably the one for you. In other words, "image" is everything! If you're mainly a cross-country traveler, want to save a little on hull insurance, and like the "Land-O-Matic" tri-gear, the 8A is probably the one for you. Recommendation #1: Before you buy, definitely fly the one you like, or both, if you are uncertain about your choice. Recommendation #2: Get your "significant other" involved in the choice! (It's much safer that way!) Recommendation #3: Go "Quick Build" if you're a first-time builder.

BOTTOM LINE: PICK THE ONE YOU WANT and ignore other's opinions. Don't Worry: You Can't Miss! Both the 8 and 8A are GREAT AIRPLANES!

 

[MarcoAviator]

TOLERANCE OF BRAKE FAILURE: The 8 has a steerable tailwheel for maintaining directional control after rudder control becomes ineffective. It's still rolling (brake failure), but at least you can keep it pointed where you want to roll. The 8A has only the rudder. Below 25mph, or so, the 8A is rolling where it wants to go.

My only comment: Yikes.

Didn't consider that. Points in favor of the TW version, here.

 

[parashak]

Good questions but choices are personal

Every pilot makes their own decisions. That's the good thing. Most RVators panels will be different, some very markedly so. Way more variation than you would see in any certified manufacturer's. The only thing I see about the TD/NG decision is that is one that you see immediately - and people will carry assumptions / prejudices when they see your plane. So be it.

I'm comfortable with the fact that other pilots will be judgemental. The nice ones won't let it affect possible friendships. I've had the negative experience of telling another pilot at the hangar what I planned on doing with my future RV-8A. He then tried to convince me that my thought process was wrong on many of my decisions (NG, engine, panel, paint...)! I tried to gleen facts from the opinions and apply them to my situation. I did decide to forgoe the 200HP for a 180HP (current choice).

I'm a low time pilot. Major consideration for me was previously mentioned insurance premium. Light planes flown in: C-152, C-172, Beech A23, CJ-6, RV-6A, RV-7A and 1929 Fleet biplane. Found that once in the air, flying was great in all. Nearly got run over as a student pilot by someone in a RV-4 who didn't S-turn. I'm glad that 8s don't have to do that, but it won't change my decision.

And for what it's worth, I don't have a problem with the way 8As look. link

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Maintenance and T-34

Brake failure (especially unexpected) in any RV can be a real eye opener (don't ask how I know).

A RV-8A looks like a T-34 to me. I think the military motif on the RV8A is cool.


If you do have a brake failure Van had an article years go on it. If you know it is coming make sure if there is a cross wind land with the wind coming from the dead brake side, since the plane will tend to weather vane into the wind. Having the down wind brake available you can use that tendency to your advantage. Hope that makes sense.


My solution to brake problems is maintenance. (Don't ask how I know. ) I agree a TD with tail wheel steering may help with out brakes, but the key is to not have a brake failure with good maintenance. I think the Trike MAY go thru brake pads more than a TD, depending on the pilots technique, but pad replacement is no big deal.

If the pads seem a little worn and you "Think" you can go another month or 100 hour without replacing, replace them. If you have any doubt, change them. Also a brake flush, routine replacement "O" rings and lines every 5 years or so may be something to consider. The hard aluminum lines near the caliber (per plans) should be replaced or annealed on some routine basis. At some point they are going to get worked hardened and be more likely to crack. Brake fluid on hot brakes can equal a fire. Why we still use red miniral based highly flammable brake fluid is a wounder to me.

Also keep rust off the caliper "float pins" and assure they are free from binding. Brakes are so simple but critical, it should be a preventive type thing. Brake failures should be very rare.
G

 

[MarcoAviator]

A RV-8A looks like a T-34 to me. I think the military motif on the RV8A is cool.

Good one. I didn't think about the T-34.

 

[Jekyll]

I fly T-34's and the rudder is effective at very low speeds. In case of a brake failure, I can turn by a using a quick shot of power with rudder. Now this sounds a bit counterintuitive if I'm trying to stop however, the momentum of the airframe in respect to accelearation is much greater than in relation to turning. A jab of power can get your turn going without accelerating the aircraft.

I'm not going to taxi up to the pumps or into a tie down using this course technique but I have more than enough control to land and get it safely off the runway as long as the length in sufficient (that constraint applies to TW or NW).

Jekyll

 

[Danny King]

Welcome,

I won't debate it. I'll just say that I agree with you that the North American P-51D Mustang is the sexiest piston driven airplane I have ever flown. Like you, I could only afford an RV-8, so I painted my 8 like the sexiest of all P-51D Mustangs, Col. John D. Landers "Big Beautiful Doll" . I can't imagine the amount of grief I would have encountered over the last six years if I had built my Beautiful Doll as a tricycle.

The RV-8 is the easiest taildragger to handle that I have ever flown, (including other RV's) and I have flown taildraggers from J-3 Cubs to Pitts Specials and plenty in between.

Don't let fear make your decision. Build what you want and go master it!

 

[Chino Tom]

Happy to move to the nose dragger bunch...

An RV-8 painted like a Mustang is the best looking RV IMHO. I fly a RV-6 which is a very close 2nd. My current project is a RV-8A. There were many reasons I chose an -A this time. My fellow RVers with TDs are quick to try and give me grief over my decison (I wonder why they don't give Rosie any grief?). I agree with Danny that the RV taildragger is as easy and forgiving of any in the taildragger breed. But flight planning still includes a healthy dose of wind concern and long Xcountry flights (like Chino to Oshkosh) are always planned to airports with multiple runways if possible. After 700 hours in my -6 and several hundreds more in others (PA-18 to Twin Beech) with no incedents I'm still very happy with the decision to build the -8A. You can't see the landing gear sitting in the captains chair and with the right paint job it will also be a GREAT looking RV.

 

[MarcoAviator]

WOW. I started looking at the completed RV8s sticky thread in this forum and I found this:

I think I'm in love.

That looks REALLY good. LOVE that paintjob.

 

[SteveDear]

Td

Hi, I'm about 6 hours into my empenage. Although I'm a long way from making the final decision, I have a 9 in my future. I am a new pilot with no tail time at all. During construction I'll be taking lessons from several TD CFI's in the area. A visit to Van's late in the project and some transition training will set me up for my tail dragger. You need to build the plane you want...It's nice to have other opinions but your the one that needs to be happy. I expect my project to take about 3 years. Practice makes perfect. I've heard the tail dragging horror stories... By most accounts, A Taildragger makes you a better pilot. Good Luck! No hard feelings you "A" guys. I can still change my mind!

 

[parashak]

How about this one? Sorry about my ugly mug in front of such a gorgeous bird (not mine; builders/owners are Chuck and Dave Rowbotham).

Can't find a photo of it, but last year in the RVator, was a photo (b&w) of an 8A dressed up like a Navy T-28 Trojan. Someone beat me to it

 

[chrispratt]

Nose vs Tail

Taildragger?

Nosedragger?

Nosedragger.

Why? Because if you have to ask, then you may not be ready for a taildragger.

Taildragger guys love taildraggers and don't think twice about going that direction. It's just something about taildraggers that gets us up in the morning.

The RV-8 is the easiest taildragger I've flown (J-3, C-140, Luscombe 8, C-170, C-195, Stinson 108-3). After making the world's ugliest landing the other day (70 degree crosswind at 30 kts and gusting), I still can't wait to try it again.

Save yourself the worry and stress, go nose.

Chris

 

[L.Adamson]

Why? Because if you have to ask, then you may not be ready for a taildragger.

Chris

Now it's starting to sound like a Honda versus a Harley debate!

Personally, after riding cycles for 40 years, I like them both.

For the appeal of speed & looks, I'll take the Rocket/ F-1 over the "8"... (more debate)

L.Adamson - RV6A

 

[joeboisselle]

*sigh* I'm gonna start a thread entitled "Highwing vs. Lowwing" if this madness suddenly stops.

 

[fodrv7]

Boring

You can wheel them, Three point them or anything in between.
Keeps an old aviator enthused.
Taildraggers for ever.
Pete.