What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Choose RV-4 or RV-8?

T

TomAniello

Member
After more than 15 years of dreaming, I hope to finally start construction of an RV later this summer. Thanks to everyone for being so generous with your time answering questions for me as I drooled over your RVs at Oshkosh and Sun n' Fun!

The question I haven?t answered yet is RV-4 or RV-8? I?d like to build a very clean, relatively simple aircraft to keep the investment cost as low as possible. Ultimate speed and an array of gadgets are not nearly as high on my list as efficiency, fun, and quality. I anticipate mostly one and two hour VFR fun flights, mild aerobatics, sight-seeing, etc., with very little long cross country flying. My wife hates to fly, so I expect to be solo 80% of the time and give rides to friends the other 20%. I?m 6?1? 190 pounds, so not too far up on the ?Bubba? scale.

I like the lines of the RV-4 better than the eight, and understand that the RV-4 has fewer (if any?) pre-punched parts. I?ve heard, too, that the RV-4 plans and instructions leave much to be desired relative to the RV-8. What can I expect as a first-time builder if I go with the RV-4? Will the RV-4 cockpit be too small for my size and flying intentions? Any difference in flying qualities? Builder support issues? I?d appreciate any thoughts forum members could share with me.
 
RV4 or 8

I'll take crack at this one. The RV8 is Van's "standard" tandem airplane. It will have better plans, better support, more evolution of the design, etc. etc. that goes with being in the mainstream. It has a bigger cabin and has a higher aerobatic gross limit(acro is solo only in the 4).

The downside is the $$$. Most people building the 8 appear to be loading them up pretty good. Average used prices are close if not over $100k. Nice RV4's are readily available at $50k. While a wood prop 320 powered RV4 is perfectly normal. A similar RV8 is somewhat unusual and may suffer in resale value.

So, if your budget is in the $50k range, look hard at the 4. If $100k is ok, then go for the 8. That said, none of it will matter if you don't fit in the 4. I know two guys who are your size. One fit well and flew a 4 for years very comfortably. The other had his knees hit the panel when seated. He is building an 8. You should make sure you are comfortable in a 4 or the whole discussion is moot. Try going to a local fly-in and see if you can sit in a few.

Good luck with your decision.

John
 
I would like to say that I am 6 ft x 220 lbs. I am building a 4. I have sat in 4s that I fit in and some I don't. Most of the differences are in the thickness of the cushions and if one adds to the bottom of the panel and where the rudder peddles are placed. VANs says you may move the roll bar and back of the front seat back I think it is about 1-1/2".

YMMV

RVRC

Robert Cutter
 
What is Bubba Scale

Bubba Scale is a polite largeness scale, invented by Vans in their newsletter. It caught on.
 
4 or 8?

I'll take a crack at this as well. I've had my 4 flying for 7 years now, and if I ever build another RV I will have a hard time not doing a 4. I would change a few things, I'd like a slider for one.

I like the look of the 4 better. The landing gear legs just look better. It is a great flyer, lands very honestly. I fly out of a 1900 x 35 strip that often has cross winds and I can honestly say that I've never scared myself on landing.

I am 5'9", about 190 on the bubba scale, and I fit well. Fitting well is a relative term. The 4 is tight, but very workable. You have to learn to manage your maps and books well, but it is very doable.

Besides you will have the eternal admiration of these new "throw it in the air and it comes down assembled" builders. They will know that you struggled through the plans, drilled EVERY hole, and made things fit.

Best airplane in the world for the money in my opinion. As are all the RV's.

Joe Hine
C-FYTQ
 
I'm short but well up on the bubba scale. No need to go into numbers here. :) The airplane you describe in your initial post IS the RV-4 but as others have pointed out you want to make sure you fit in one. I don't think you'll have a problem but what I think doesn't matter. Sit in a few and think about if you moved this or that, this way or that way would it make a better fit for you?

You really can't beat the RV-4 for looks AND handling. I can only compare it to the -6 but I have heard other say it is the best handling in the RV fleet. Your mission is about the same as mine, wife is not a big time flier, mostly local hops of 2 hours or less. The 4 really fits your bill.

As far as building, don't worry about the manual. It will keep you on the right track. I've never built anything in my life. I never even took shop class in high school. Still, I was able to build my RV-4. True, you have to drill and dimple a LOT of holes but it's not as time consuming as it seems. Besides if you run into a snag in the building process, you've still got Van's support, but best of all you can do what RV builder have been doing for hundreds of years... check the mailing list archives, ask questions here. :) Most of us on these forums have built our own and no matter what you run into, we've all been there done that and moved on. You will too. Don't sweat it, just dive in!
 
4? 8? 4? 8?

Thanks guys, for sharing your experiences. It just reinforces in my mind what a great bunch of people I've found the RV community to be. I'm excited to begin. We have the Rocky Mountain Regional Fly-In near Denver in June, and Van is displaying, so I'll try to wrangle a sit in an RV-4 and make my decision. The first RV I ever saw in person was a -4, and it just seems to keep coming back to me.

Fly safe,

Tom
 
4 cockpit space

Tom, I have a small problem in that I have a artificial leg so I did some
serious looking before starting to build the 4. I found a 4 that had the
front seat moved back 2" that I was able to sit in and have adequet room
for the bionic leg to clear the bottom of the panel. I am now finishing the
canopy and have sat in the plane with the foot held on the pedal with a
sturup under the foot attached to the pedal that works great. Will put a
hydrolic motorcycle type brake lever on the stick for the right wheel. Didn't
do anymore than move the roll bar back 2" plus the seat back. Don't even
think about widening the cockpit as a friend did, the roll bar had to be widened plus many other problems.
Ted
 
I widened the cockpit side rails just ahead of the roll bar to give me a little more shoulder room but didn't change the plans to make any other part of the cockpit wider.
 
newbie to forum question: RV-4 versus RV-8

I am brand new to your forum and ask your patience with what may be something that has been already discussed.

The one big question that I have had for years concerns the choice between the -4 and the -8. Aside from the facts that can be garnered from Van's site, have any of you heard builders/pilots share why they opted for one over the other? Some have said the -4 is more of a "pilot's plane" whle others praise the -8 for its increased utility. Matched hole tooling is the obvious plus.

I apologize in advance for my lack of prior lurk.
 
Depp,

Welcome to the forum!

This is kind of like the RV-9 vs. RV-7 debate, it comes down to personal choice. The -8 is a great airplane, as is the -4. Having ridden in both, the -8 has a bunch more room than the -4. The -8 seems to be more of a traveling machine that can do acro while the -4 is more of an acro plane that can travel.

If this is your first build, the -8 is much easier to build as the kit is all pre-punched. Where as the -4 requires a lot of jigging and head scratching.

Having built one plane (and RV-9), were I to build another one, it would be the -8.

One piece of advice I like to give, "Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build."
 
4v8

Depp,

Welcome to the forum. Let me begin with the disclaimer that I am no expert and opinions here may vary. I can tell you the things that I have learned from others who know much more about the issue, and whom I invite to chime in to correct me or express other opinions.

Many pilots believe that the 4 is the best airplane that Vans designed, with the possible and likely exception of the 3, regarding the fun factor. I have flown a 4 and found it to be, as described by others, as very responsive and agile. It does however have limitations notwitstanding the high fun factor.

The 4 is a light sport airplane, less suited to long distance travel than the 8. With that said, some 4 owners do travel cross country in their ships and don't seem to mind the limitations. Smokey Ray may be able to provide useful input here.

The 4 is limited, I think, to solo aerobatics. It also has some aft CG issues, I am told. That may be one reason for the solo aerobatic limitation.

The 4 will also probably take longer to build than the 8, since the 8 has pre punched holes.

The difference in cost to build the 4 seems to be not much less than the 8.

The 8 is more of a traveling machine which retains 95% of the fun factor of the 4.

There is a reason that nobody that I know of is building a 4 any longer. I suspect that someone is, and will hop in to tell us why. Those who are building an 8, and there are a ton of us, could have built a 4 but chose not to after doing the same research that you are doing now.

I still regard the 4 as an excellent aircraft. However, I chose to build an 8 (A). Whichever you choose, you will love it.
 
I chose a -4.

Depp, I am building a -4. My reasons are here:
http://gikonwhy4.blogspot.com/

Since I wrote that I am even more pleased that I am building a -4 ,not an -8, and it is to do with comments about -4 .v.-8 handling that I repeatedly hear. I am sure it is a very slight issue though, and you will be pleased with either.

I am sure there will be days when I wish I had more room for stuff when travelling.

Good luck with your decision.
 
Your height / weight and the height / weight of pax would be a consideration. Sit in a -4 then an -8. Close the canopy with a headset on. Move your head around. Twist and look back at the tail.

If you are buying, a very nice -4 would cost less than a similarly outfitted -8.

If you are building, a -4 is more work. No quick build available for the -4. Lower resale on the -4.

The -4 has a built up spar with no mill steps. The -8 has a simplified spar with mill steps.
 
Last edited:
Build the 8 if you ever plan to sell it.

For about the same build cost, maybe a bit higher, 8's are selling for double that of 4's. They are the popular choice, not necessarily the right choice for you however.
All Van's products are great and fly very well. They may not be the fastest kits planes, they may not be the best STOL machines, they dont have a very good airfoil for inverted flight and advanced aerobatics, but they do amazingly well at all of the above, which is very difficult to achieve in one airplane.
I agree with all of the other posts.
 
4 Ergonomics...

Depp,

Welcome to one of the best forums on the www! VAF is like having Oshkosh on your desktop :) You can thank Doug Reeves for his effort in bringing this to all of us.

I flew my RV4 (see avatar) for 7 years and traveled alot of the US in it. With really good seats, the RV4 is just "ok" as far as comfort goes. Its a relatively tight fit, and the back seat isn't much good for adults on long flights. I did enough long ones with my wife or friends back there and they mostly froze and got a really sore butt. And at 5-10, I felt like any bigger would be a squeeze in the front seat.

And CG issues do come to life in the 4. Mine had a IO360 FP prop, and 210 was the limit in the back. At that point, my airplane had slightly divergent dynamic stability but it was controllable. A friend has a 4 with 200HP CS (very heavy engine installation too) and back seat weight isn't an issue, but it loses its light feel in pitch with all the weight on the nose. I think he's just at or maybe a bit outside the forward CG limit solo. The 8 accomodates a CS prop "by design" so there's another advantage it has -v- the 4.

The 8, which is what I have in the shop now, is much better on ergonomics. IMHO, that's why they sell for so much more. Flying characteristics are very close, with the extra heft of the 8 being felt a bit more. Aerodynamically, they're pretty much carbon copies of each other.

But, like you've read here, they're both good airplanes.

(The 4 looks better though :D)
 
Last edited:
thank you and another question

Thank you to all who commented on my post. I really appreciated it.

I was wondering on my walk today if I would be trying your collective patience if I basically were to pose the same question but as applied to a -7 versus a -9. I can't see any great savings (or advantage) in the -9 and you are giving up the structural strength that make the -7 aerobatic.

I only ask rhis since my wife (who is terrified of flying) says she does not want to stare at the back of my bald head!

Sorry again for this being perhaps a stupid question.
 
My two most important reasons for choosing the 8, over the 4, are room and carrying ability.
Originally, I went after the 4, but in the process, learned that the 8 would be more practical for my use.
I think the 4 will always have a "special" place in my heart, though!
 
Mine too..

Depp vom Dienst said:
.

I only ask rhis since my wife (who is terrified of flying) says she does not want to stare at the back of my bald head!

....
Click to expand...

My wife feels exactly the same....this way I can get an occasional kiss:D

Furthermore, Depp, if she said that, it looks like you'll have a travelling companion.....something quite a few guys on here would envy, based on their earlier posts. Then it begs this question...would you rather fly along solo in your -8 or fly with your wife by your side?

I'm fortunate because my buddy hangars his -4 in my hangar so I have access to it whenever I like. Down the road, you could find yourself in a similar situation....a -4 or -8 owner who'd trade airplanes with you for a day..it happens a lot.

Regards,
 
Depp vom Dienst said:
I was wondering on my walk today if I would be trying your collective patience if I basically were to pose the same question but as applied to a -7 versus a -9. I can't see any great savings (or advantage) in the -9 and you are giving up the structural strength that make the -7 aerobatic.

I only ask rhis since my wife (who is terrified of flying) says she does not want to stare at the back of my bald head!

Sorry again for this being perhaps a stupid question.
Click to expand...
I am building a -7A. Originally I wanted to build a -9A but many of the local RV fliers talked me into the -7A. In the middle of my project I had buyers remorse and wished I had stayed with the -9A because cross-country is going to be a very large part of how we are going to use the plane. Now that I am within a couple months of finishing up I am glad that I went with the -7A. I really like the idea that I will be able to go out and really play around with her, throw her on her back and all that (the plane that is).

The other love of my life is the biggest driving force in getting the plane done. She wants to go flying and plans to take flying lessons in it. That is the main reason for the nose wheel. I think it will be easier for her to take flight training in.

My wife and I plan on keeping the plane busy taking us to all of the beautiful parts of this country. I never considered putting her in a back seat, up front beside me was the only choice. One of the neat things is it looks like we are going to be able to swap seats. Doesn't get much better than that.

Steve Eberhart
RV-7A O-360-A1A, slider, working on the panel and getting ready to paint
 
7 or 9?

Depp, It looks like you are from Europe? I don't fly there but I understand that it is expensive to cross borders and do a lot of cross country flying without a large expense. If cross country flying will be limited and local flights the norm and your wife is "terrified" it sounds like a lot of flights will be solo. Straight and level local flights only goes so far and then is like chewing gum that has lost some flavor (IMO). The takeoffs and landings are always fun as they require some precision. Limited acro also requires some precision and prolongs the flavor. I do mostly cross country but the local flights are more fun to me with a little upside down thrown in. That would make the choice a 6 or 7. The interiors are virtually identical for the 6, 7 and 9. :) George

Depp vom Dienst said:
Thank you to all who commented on my post. I really appreciated it.

I was wondering on my walk today if I would be trying your collective patience if I basically were to pose the same question but as applied to a -7 versus a -9. I can't see any great savings (or advantage) in the -9 and you are giving up the structural strength that make the -7 aerobatic.

I only ask rhis since my wife (who is terrified of flying) says she does not want to stare at the back of my bald head!

Sorry again for this being perhaps a stupid question.
Click to expand...
 
7(A) vs. 9(A)

Can't help but chime in here with a little bit of first hand experience in the 7 vs. 9 arena. My brother's 9A has a "run-out" O-320 FP, is pretty much plain vanilla day/night vfr airplane. My friend Bob, the guy who died Dec.'06 in Norman, OK, had a 7A, new IO-360 CS, Blue Mountain EFIS I. Not really anything fancy in the panel. Both airplanes weighed in within a few pounds of each other, the 9A was 1065 lbs. and if memory serves me correctly, the 7A was 1063 lbs. Both airplanes were hangered in my hanger, the 9A still is, at my house (private airpark) hanger rent is, I flew whichever airplane I wanted to whenever I wanted.:)
Now, below 10,000',with power settings comparitively set, FP, 2450 rpm, for the 9, & CS 2300rpm/19"mp. The 9 is faster, you can flight plan at 180 mph.:) The 7 would cruise at 170 mph.:rolleyes: When flying side by side, we had to pull the throttle to 2200 on the 9 to keep from outrunning the 7. Above 10,000, the 7 was 1-1.5 mph faster.
When visiting with the folks at Van's at OSH, they said the 7 should be faster than the 9.:confused:
Never did any fuel burn calculations. The 7 definately would out climb the 9, no surprise there, & less ground roll. The 7 was REALLY quicker on the controls than the 9. The 9 j...u...s...t feels a tiny bit heavier on the controls, but feels great.
From MY OWN, unscientific experience, both airplanes are great. You can go fast with a little acro, or go a little bit faster without acro.:eek:
These are only my observations & mine alone from flying both airplanes.
You won't be dissappointed with either one.

Marshall Alexander
RV10 N781DM
QB fuse, fitting cabin top
 
thank you all again--my thoughts

gvgoff99 said:
Depp, It looks like you are from Europe? I don't fly there but I understand that it is expensive to cross borders and do a lot of cross country flying without a large expense. If cross country flying will be limited and local flights the norm and your wife is "terrified" it sounds like a lot of flights will be solo. Straight and level local flights only goes so far and then is like chewing gum that has lost some flavor (IMO). The takeoffs and landings are always fun as they require some precision. Limited acro also requires some precision and prolongs the flavor. I do mostly cross country but the local flights are more fun to me with a little upside down thrown in. That would make the choice a 6 or 7. The interiors are virtually identical for the 6, 7 and 9. :) George
Click to expand...

Hi all:

Once again thank all very much for your informed opinions and patience.

So, based on all of your input, I have eliminated the -4 and the -9 from consideration, I am still stuck between the airplane that I really want (the -8 that looks way too much like a P-51D to resist! ha ha) and the one that makes much more sense for going cross country flying with my bride. The-7 is the most logical choice in this respect..

Simply said, the airplane I want is most definitely an -8. Life has been a compromise thus far so it would be nice to do at least one thing that isn't; That is, if I can afford it but it is not the logical choice.


Just a final thought to dispel the rumor: I am not in Europe, but in the USA. Sorry for the confusion. I just got back from Germany (National Guard deployments) recently and had lived there for a few years back in the 80's. Hence my German "handle". I sure would not want to put up with the GA restrictions that they have over there! I could not even find an EAA chapter to visit during my time over there this past year. The AOPA magazine had a very good story on this very sad topic (restrictions on GA in Europe) last Summer.
My sincere thanks to all of you again,
"Depp"
 
Perfect!

Depp,
Glad to see you are going with the RV-8! Of course I'm a little partial! :)
I struggled with the -4 v -8 issue as well and after much help from folks locally and here on the forum I'm happy with my decision to build the -8. I actually like the looks of the RV-4, but like mentioned here it lacks some of the roominess and upgrades that the -8 has.
Also, I hate to admit it, but as a new builder (have rebuilt a couple of planes) I would have been frustrated without the fast progress afforded by a match-drilled RV-8 kit.

Have fun and be sure to use this forum often to help when you need it.

Regards,
 
RV-4 vs RV-8

Looking to buy -4, just don't know if enough back room in seat to sit someone comfortably. Should I just start shopping for an -8 instead? Any help would be appreciated.
 
I originaly liked the 4, but im building an 8 for the added room and XC.

I look forward to here what others have to say.
 
Hi Patrick...and welcome on here.

I'm right at 6', 190 lbs and I just do fit in the front with my buddy, who's 5' 10, 165 lbs in the back. It's comfortable enough for a couple of hours or so.

Do you have a SO you'd be putting in the rear? Size?

Regards,
 
Option Three...

Patrick,
Why not buy a Harmon Rocket? It's basically an RV4 wing with the laminated spar, same number of ribs moved closer together, shorter span and much beefier fuselage. The Rocket has more front cockpit room than the 8, flies better (in my humble opinion having flown all three)has a wider speed range and is prettier...Right now the prices are comparable with the nicer -8's.

Smokey
HR2

www.harmonrocket.com

Side benefit is the IO-540 is very smoooth and has a really nice throaty, dragster-like growl...:)
 
Last edited:
Not too fat (i guess)

I am 5'11". 200lbs. Yeah, I know, little beefy for my height. Everybody that will be flying with me in the back will be 6' or less.

Patrick
 
A six footer with big feet in the back doesn't work too well. IMHO. Their feet won't fit and their knees will be in their ears.
 
Choose wisely...

Patrick,

Over the 1400 hours I flew my RV4 I made the backseat weight cutoff at 200 lbs aft of the roll bar, period. I installed rear seat footwells which are a lifesaver over a long haul. If you use thin forward cushions up front and move the lower seat hinge back 2" you won't have any problem in the -4.

Smokey
HR2

The best back seaters are cute girls less than 105 lbs. Tell anybody else to buy their own -4!
 
Last edited:
RV-4 vs RV-8 vs Rocket

I too am learning about differances of the VAF types.
Next month is Sun & Fun in Florida. This may be a great chance to actually see some of these birds and "cop a feel";)
Looking at "fight deck" pics it easy to see the Rocket is amazingly roomy up front. It seems (trade a plane & barnstormers) that an 8 is less than double the price of a similar equipped 4.
Ahh but sadly, I have only actually seen a -4 once:eek: That will change soon.
 
In my mind if I flew someone in the back once a month then I should look at the -8 but I don't so the -4 is fine for me.

Like Smokey, I have a 200 lbs limit aft of the roll bar.
 
RV4 VS RV8

First decide what you want to do with the airplane. If you are into Aerobatics get an RV4 as it is much superior in that arena. If you want comfort and crosscountry go with the RV8 but you must remember you only have 3/4 the roll rate of the RV4. That all said I fit in the back of the RV4 snugly at 5'8'' and 200plus. But finally with the RV4 you will be limited in over the top manuvers with weight in the back seat. Roger Moore
 
They are both great

Norman CYYJ said:
A six footer with big feet in the back doesn't work too well. IMHO. Their feet won't fit and their knees will be in their ears.
Click to expand...

Norman and Patrick,
I'm 6'4" tall and 210 to 215 lbs. I've flown in the rear of a 4 a number of times. While it's a snug fit, it's OK. I have long legs and big feet (12E shoes). I never had a problem with my knees. It's close, but doable. My headset was only about 1/2" from the canopy. I'm at the absolute upper limit for weight & height. I usually only flew in my buddy's 4 when I was under 210.
I started out building a 4 with a partner. My father always warned me about partnerships, and he was right! My partner thought that he was management and I was labor! ;)
I'm now building an 8A. The 8 and 8A are much roomier than the 4. The biggest advantage the 8 and 8A have over the 4 is pre-punching & a higher level of fabricated parts in the kit. Did Vans ever upgrade the 4 kits to pre-punching or matched hole?
The 4 has a stronger wing spar than the early 8s. The newer MKI 8 & 8A kits have an improved wing spar.
If you are looking to build, the 8 will be easier and less work. If you want to buy a finished aircraft, the 4 will typically cost less to buy. The downside of building a 4 is that it's more work (assuming that Vans has not upgraded the kit) and will have a lower resale value. The upside of the 4 is it's lower weight & drag. Try to get a flight in each to make an informed decision.
Build/buy what you want.
Charlie Kuss
PS The RV4 I flew in had an O-320 and a Sensenich fixed pitch aluminum prop.
 
Last edited:
You can buy a lot of "4"...

..with $50K. Can't touch an 8 for that. I think the best deals I have seen on flying aircraft are the 4's. Some very nice airplance trading in the sub 50's too.
 
The limiting factor in the back seat is headroom. You would be amazed at the difference in sitting height of different people. I am four inches taller than my wife, but she has a taller sitting height. You'll have to sit in the airplanes, and have your tallest possible passenger do it too if possible, to see if they will fit. I've had 5' 10" people having to lean forward a tad to not touch the canopy with their head, and had 6 footers with no problem.

Regarding weight limit for back seat; one of the reasons I chose to have a C/S prop and an AEIO 360 is for the additional weight, which gives me some advantages on the restrictive CG for aerobatics. The smaller the mottor and lighter the prop, the less weight in the back to stay within CG. I have done aerobatics with 220 pounds in the back seat, but I made sure I didn't come close to stall. Best of all, the C/S prop and 360 motor make the Rv-4 quite a beast performance wise, for the money.
 
4 or 8?

Hello everyone, I'm a newb here and hope this topic hasn't been beat to death.
I am really taken with both the 4s & 8s. I know the 8 is a bit wider and can carry more luggage but what other differences are there? The pre-owned 8s are considerably more expensive than the 4s and I'm wondering if there really is that much difference. I could conceivably afford a 4, not sure if I could an 8. I would mostly fly for myself. My wife and I would take an occasional trip but not very often I would think. Is there a substantial comfort difference? Thanks for the insight I'm sure to read about.
sven
 
You'll get lots of informed decisions on this, and can use the search function to see what's been written already.

The 8 is not just an upsized 4. There are some differences. The gear is quite different, with the 4 being steel rod gear mounted via the engine mount (check for firewall damage) and the 8 being flat gear mounted to the fuselage. The 8 has a longer wingspan, and more fuel. The 8 can fit a 200hp angle valve 0-360 while the 4 was designed for 180hp max. The 4 typically has a tip over canopy while the 8 has a slider. Interior size is quite a bit different, especially in the back (8 having more room). The 8's are pre-punched and/or quick built while the 4's aren't, so there is probably better build consistency in the 8's. Though typically lower empty weight, the gross on the 4 is quite a bit less than the 8, so less payload. Many will say the 4 flys "better" than the 8 and is more responsive, especially if built light. I'm sure there is more. Best thing would be to see, sit in, and fly each to know what works best for you.
 
What JV said is good. I was in the same place a year ago, ended up with a -4. I was building an -8 and getting nowhere; couldn't justify the expense of a flying -8. The gear comment is well-founded; learning to land the -4 has been.... um, fun? Actually, it has been. I keep telling myself that hundreds of other pilots have figured out how to land the -4 and I can too. Getting much better and happy to have saved the expense over the -8. I bought a flying -4 for a very good price that needed updates. Doing the updates now and having a ball!
 
4 vs. 8

Sven: Are you a big square headed Swede like me? I am 6' and 200# (36 waist, 32 inseam) and I barely fit in my four. I am comfortable for maybe two hours, then I want out. My wife is tall but slender. She fits is the back OK but she can tolerate two hours max. My pilot sons are tall with a slender build (6-5, hwp). One son can't get his legs under the panel, while the other can but can't close the canopy. Both fit easily in the seven I am (slowly) building. I have not flown the 8 but I sat in one. Lots more room.

On the plus side, my four has a 180 Lyc, wood prop, and is nibble and light. It is a joy to fly. I think a light, simple four can't be beat for value. If you are my size or smaller you will like the four just fine. Hope this helps.
 
See if you can find someone near you with both that will take you for a ride or at least sit in the front seat.

If you can live with a 4, the premium you save over buying an 8 will pay for a LOT of gas!
 
I'm still pretty much a newbie at flying RV's so take my opinion with a grain of salt... I have about 25 hours in the RV-4 and right at 50 hours in an RV-8, including long cross-country flying an -8 from Texas to Wisconsin and back.

For me the -4 is cramped and uncomfortable after about 2 hours, although I have spent as much as 6 hours flying around in one in a single day. The -8 feels much bigger and is roomy and comfortable and I can cheerfully spend 6 hours sitting in one in a single day.

I can also land the -8 a whole lot easier and prettier than a -4 :p

In my humble opinion, the -4 is still a single-person hotrod that happens to have an undersized rear seat for giving short pleasure flights to a hapless victim (excuse me while I put on my flame suit!), while the -8 is a true cross-country cruiser that you can take a passenger and adequate baggage on long trips in comfort and style. But yet, I still consider the side-by-side RV-7 as the plane of my dreams I hope to build or buy someday.
 
I can relate

I can relate to this decision. I too wanted a -4 rather than the -8, siting slightly better looking and slightly sportier handling-wise - both of these are in the eyes of the beholder.
Everyone, and I mean everyone I spoke to said to do an -8. The reasons given were as follows:
  • Much easier to build (read faster less frustrating construction)
  • Resale almost double
  • More fuel
  • More room
  • More baggage
  • Did I meantion resale value?

In the end I found my biggest issue with the -8 compared to the -4 is the
bulbuous windshield, which I fixed on mine.
I still love the -4 though.

Build what you want and you'll have no regrets.
 
Why not the best of both, with a bigger engine!

Look in to the Harmon Rocket II yet? More room than both the 4 and 8, faster than both and with the 52 gallon kit, holds more fuel. Engines are easier to find too! And in a lot of cases engines are cheaperas well, the RV's are grabbing up the 360's but the 540's are easy to find.
 
Mission Dependent

I have 500 hours in an RV-8 and about 300 in an RV-4. In my opinion it's mission dependent however I'm only 5'8? and weigh 160. The -8 is a great cross country plane. Spent many hours touring between New Mexico and the Alaska.

The -4 is an exceedingly fun airplane for local sport aerobatics, playing in the mountains, formation work and the proverbial within a 100 mile lunch run.

I expect to have my RV-3 flying this year and will make another personal evaluation on which airplane to keep. (There is actually more pilot room in a -3 than a -4.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top