[Deuskid]

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

but would a low wing nose gear be better than a hi wing tail dragger?

just wondering

 

[uk_figs]

7 0r 7A debate

I started building a 7A because it was deemed "easier" to handle, when I got to the point of ordering the fuselage I changed my mind and went with a 7 because I really prefer the way the 7 looks. I have since bought a Piper Pacer taildragger to build time and experience and I have to say that so far it has been challenging but largely because I have to unlearn some habits and learn to fly using my feet a lot more (particularly take-off and landing)
I figure if I can fly the Pacer well the RV should be no problem and the Pacer requires me to fly all the time which should build my skills and proficiency.
In the end if you are going to spend a number of years of hard earned time and money I think you should build the RV you you really want and learn how to fly it well to enjoy it.

 

[Bill Palmer]

Rv-8/8a Objective Comparison Update

In deference to subsequent comments by the 8A crowd, some further research, and after consultation with some of my "taildragger" buddies (I'm an 8A guy, so I'm biased!), I offer some updates to the following sections: "TOLERANCE OF BRAKE FAILURE," "AVERAGE RESALE VALUE," and "WALTER MITTY FACTOR (IMAGE)"

RV-8/8A OBJECTIVE COMPARISON (Attempt #2, Apr. 14, 2006)

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. Note: In case of a one-side brake failure with the 8A (or the 8 for that matter), you can gain some low speed control by leveraging a crosswind IF you detect the brake failure prior to landing (a brake check in your pre-landing checklist). Land with the crosswind blowing into your failed brake side and use the aircraft's "weather-vaning" tendency to help steer the airplane back to the centerline while you brake with the opposite side (good) brake. Also, you can try short, quick blasts of the engine/prop combined with full rudder deflection and/or application of the "good" brake to "push" the nose one way or the other. Lastly, once you slow down enough (5 mph or so), you can "cautiously" apply the remaining good brake to turn into a spin/stop. Many RV-8 pilots do this all the time as a "standard" arrival procedure (the Famous "Ramp Spin!"). Final Note: Brake Failure is apparently not a common problem for the RV-8 or 8A.

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" backseater (non-pilot or no tailwheel time) (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. RV-8As, like RV-6As and 7As, seem to sell a little more quickly. They're not in the listings very long unless they're clearly overpriced.

WALTER MITTY FACTOR (IMAGE): Based on relative sales/numbers: 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 more like a sleek T-34 or T-6A (JPATS) rather than recalling nostalgic, romantic images of World War II fighters and airshow aerobats as the 8 definitely does. Frankly, it's a "toss-up" and a "personal preference" when it comes to looks and image. It's like trying to pick between Marilyn Monroe (8) and Kim Basinger (8A).

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! Again, BOTH the 8 and 8A are GREAT-FLYING, TERRIFIC-LOOKING AIRPLANES!

 

[gmcjetpilot]

SO what is it?

Frankly, it's a "toss-up" and a "personal preference" when it comes to looks and image. It's like trying to pick between Marilyn Monroe (8) and Kim Basinger (8A).

BOTTOM LINE: PICK THE ONE YOU WANT and ignore others opinions. Don't Worry: You Can't Miss! Again, BOTH the 8 and 8A are GREAT-FLYING, TERRIFIC-LOOKING AIRPLANES!

Real good info, but a few points / questions?

Marilyn Monroe is dead, that is beyond necrophilia, ewwwww. Kim is going a little psycho giving Alec a hard time in divorce land, too scary. I guess the point is don't pick a plane or woman on looks alone, which is an appropriate analogy.

So what is your personal preference; I don't think you said?

It seems like you do have a prefrence (airplane not woman). Some of your comments where leaning or sounded a little biased, which is cool, but wounder what yours choice is. I like the tail dragger better, don't pay more insurance than a trike and don't find TD RV's hard to land in a cross-wind. However that is my story and I am sticking to it. G

 

[Captain Avgas]

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

Funny that.....when I first saw an RV7 taildragger on the tarmac I thought it looked like a down-in-the-arse, dumpy, dinky, toy plane. And I still do. The RV7 is too short in length to be an attractive tail dragger. On the other hand the RV7A stands up, has presence, and looks like it's ready to pounce. Just my opinion of course.

Aesthetically speaking the RV8 makes a better taildragger because of the longer fuselage.

In the end it's just a personal preference sort of thing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[cjensen]

Aesthetically speaking the RV8 makes a better taildragger because of the longer fuselage.

looks can be quite deceiving...the RV-8 fuse is only 8" longer than the -7. longer, but not by much. it's the canopy that really makes it look longer.

the -8A is only 6" longer than the -7A.

 

[Captain Avgas]

Length that counts

looks can be quite deceiving...the RV-8 fuse is only 8" longer than the -7. longer, but not by much. it's the canopy that really makes it look longer.

the -8A is only 6" longer than the -7A.

Yes, but just a few extra inches can make all the difference.

 

[L.Adamson]

Funny that.....when I first saw an RV7 taildragger on the tarmac I thought it looked like a down-in-the-arse, dumpy, dinky, toy plane. And I still do. The RV7 is too short in length to be an attractive tail dragger. On the other hand the RV7A stands up, has presence, and looks like it's ready to pounce. Just my opinion of course.

Aesthetically speaking the RV8 makes a better taildragger because of the longer fuselage.

That's exactly my thoughts!

The short & fat low aspect ratio RV wing is NOT the sportiest looking when viewed from underneath. I know, as I live under the airport pattern with lot's of RV's.

Sitting on the ground, in taildragger mode, that short/fat unappealing wing, just stands out more!

Yet in flight, the taildragger such as Doug Reeve's looks beautiful in flight, when photographed from a side view. I really like the photo with his and the yellow & white RV in formation. In flight, I prefer the taildragger & think the nosewheel looks out of place. Quite frankly, I prefer the looks of retractables! Even that retractable RV4 looks more like a P-51 with wheels up.

But seriously, after months of tough deciding, whether to go tail or tri-gear with my 6 (a), it was the appearance sitting on the ramp, that made my final decision.

It's just one of those things. A P-51 Mustang would look stupid with a nose wheel, and modern business jets would look rediculous with tail wheels!

Edit..... had the 8 model been available when I purchased the 6A, I'd have probably bought it, in tailwheel mode, and gave it a WWII military finish. When I was a kid, shortly after WWII, my father owned a WWII surplus BT13
trainer. I've just always liked that old military stuff, with the P-51D being my favorite.

 

[fodrv7]

Hairdressers Aeroplane

Now come on Barrow.
Which is the 'Hairsresser's Aeroplane?
Pete.

 

[fodrv7]

Speeling

I can't even speel Hairdresser.
Pete

 

[Captain Avgas]

I can't even speel Hairdresser.
Pete

Pete, it's quite obvious that you're suffering from the long term effects of mild hypoxia as a result of all the test flying you've been doing lately....not only have you forgotten how to spell but your sense of aesthetics is now in question. The RV7A is undoubtedly the more striking plane. Now if VanGrunsven would only do something about that nasty, dodgy nosewheel design it would be a winner all around.

 

[MarcoAviator]

from what I gather, landing a nosewheel RV is just as challenging as landing a taildragger.

The Taildragger RV has all the difficulties of a taildragger ... the Nosewheel RV has some challenges that normal nosedaggers don't have: the nosewheel folds under stress and there's a few incidents to confirm this. Add it to the fact that the nosewheel is non-steering and you got a recipe for some nasty surprises (even in a crosswind) if you don't pay attention.

All this, to me, really narrows the choice down to how the plane will look, not how it will handle.

At the end of the day, 8 or 8-A ... you need to pay equal amount of attention and you need to equally be on top of your game to land them safely.

If you screw up with the 8 you ground loop. If you screw up with the 8-A you fold the nosewheel. Now, granted, both occurrences are rare ... and they happen only if you really screw up bad ... but I had a friend that owned my Cherokee with me (partnership) and he managed to land it so hard on the nose and purpose it, that he prop striked it and cracked two of the engine attachment bolts.

Had he been landing on an 8-A that 8-A I am ready to bet, would have been totaled. Only the the fact that the cherokee is a tank limited the damage.

The RVs (as someone mentioned) are not trainers ... and that I know already and I accept that.

The "A" versions need full attention from the pilot to properly coach that nosewheel on the ground. Any rough stuff and all bets are off.

Sounds to me like risk-wise there's no advantage to using an "A" versus a tailwheel version.

That been said I don't really care too much to go for a plane that is a "challenge" to land. That's not what would motivate my choice.

If I wanted a challenge I'd buy a Pitts ... not an RV.

All things being equal, Rv8 or Rv8-A ... is all a matter of looks. And the nosewheel version (after looking around the posted pictures of completed RVs) doesn't look bad at all, even with USAF insignas.

The extra visibility on taxing and the fact that it doesn't require an endorsement, makes it easier for other people to fly it (like my friends or my wife for example).

At this point I may be leaning towards the "A" version.

Obviously ... being a good year away from even getting to the fuselage, I may change my mind ... again, and again, and again ...

 

[cjensen]

like everyone has been saying, it's a matter of training. i think i'm leaning TW, but still not decided for sure. i fly Diamond DA20's and DA40's at work, and they are castoring nose wheel airplanes. i took the DA40 to Dupage this past wednesday, and landed with a 20-25knot gusty 80 degree crosswind, and while it was a challenge, the castoring nose wheel did just fine. it is different with a non-steerable nose wheel, but you just learn how to use it, and it works fine. i assume the same is true for the TW. i have 2 landings in TW airplanes and no endorsement, so i can't speak of the ease (or not) of taking off and landing a TW RV. if i build a TW -7, i'll get the training, and fly safe within my limits. easy enough.

 

[jsherblon]

Is there a poll on the numbers for flying RV tail draggers / nose draggers (and tip-ups / sliders)?

 

[mannanj]

Build what you want to see when you open the hangar door. If it's a taildragger, master it. You'll be a better all around pilot in the end.

Mannan
RV-8 N161RL (No. 1 Girl)
Almost flying

 

[pmercier]

tough choice

When my brother and I talked about which RV we would build the choice was easy we are both nosedragger trained and we felt most comfortable with the RV7-A choice. Later when I started looking for my own project, I always loved the look of the 4 and when I found a project to take over I jumped at it. I'll do some tailwheel training as I start to get ready to fly and then I'll do RV-4 transition training. I feel comfortable that I'll be ready after that.

 

[Mustang]

Landing the RV-4 in a big wind

A week or so ago, I was ferrying the "4" down to the main airport from a grass strip. When I arrived in the valley, I found a squall coming through and the wind was about 30 degrees off the runway and 20 knots, gusting to 34. A couple of amphibs were in the pattern from up North and I hung back to let them get in. One of the guys did a go-around but made it in on the second try. I was a bit worried about the "4" after landing when turning around and taxiing back downwind to the hangar. The landing part was pretty easy, even with the gusts which continued unabated. I straightened out the crosswind somewhat by landing on a diagonal from one corner of the runway to the other side of the 200 foot wide strip. I stopped, and gingerly turned around using ailerons and elevator in a judicious manner, and LO, I could not even tell that the wind was blowing. The little RV trundled back down the runway without a quiver and all the way home. So, it turned out that my ground handling fears were for naught. I was very pleased!

Cheers, Pete