Van's Air Force
The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!
Fighter Pilots - Is the RV-8 really "fighter-like" in its handling?
- Thread starter inktomi
- Start date
Found a video of a T-38 rolling 840 deg/sec.
That list was created by a guy who gathered roll video files shot by the pilot of each airplane, and he precisely measured the roll rates by the video frames.
Last edited:
Well, that’s an F-16. Having flown both, the T-38 has a higher roll rate.Found a video of a T-38 rolling 840 deg/sec.
But the F-16 is no slouch.
sadf
Yeah... it's just a joke to show what this ludicrously claimed roll rate (840/sec) actually looks like. No airplane ever built rolls that fast on aileron [correction]....R/C airplanes do.
Last edited:
Fffflats
Well Known Member
Found a video of a T-38 rolling 840 deg/sec.
I have never maximized roll rate to win a fight. Pitch rate yes. Energy excursion yes. Energy addition yes. Yaw yes. But never won off of rapid roll. Never lost for lack of roll either.
Okay.
Apologies to the group for feeding the troll.
Nah, I'm just a fan of reality and truth. I'm sure you guys can recognize these claimed roll rates are total nonsense, even though it makes not a dang bit of difference in the world.
The next time you take off, request "climb unrestricted" and see if it can go vertical like an F-15 and accelerate.
I think it is safe to say that any RV is fighter-like, as long as you consider fighters anything that spans from the Sopwith Camel to the F-22.
I think it is safe to say that any RV is fighter-like, as long as you consider fighters anything that spans from the Sopwith Camel to the F-22.
It's been a long time since I flew the T-38, but as I remember, the book roll rate was 720 degrees per second, and maximum deflection aileron rolls were prohibited. What I do remember is that you probably couldn't get to full deflection without going through 360 degrees of roll, and your helmet might smack the canopy if you weren't ready for it . Of course, no young lieutenant would actually try anything like that.
Last edited:
That warning was due to the T-38 wicked roll coupling tendency. After 3 full rolls, the pitch excursion would set in and things would get weird in a hurry. I never wanted to see a lomcevak in the white rocket.It's been a long time since I flew the T-38, but as I remember, the book roll rate was 720 degrees per second, and maximum deflection aileron rolls were prohibited. What I do remember is that you couldn't get to full deflection without going through 360 degrees of roll, and your helmet was probably going to smack the canopy if you tried it. Of course, no young lieutenant would actually try anything like that.
I’ve owned both the 4&8 (still own the 4) and I’ve driven the Rocket, apart from the excess power the Rocket had the 4 is the best handling of them all.
The Flighter like feeling is purely due the centreline seating and balanced feeling that comes with the driver being mid mounted.
To get that true jet fighter feeling add a few 000000’s to the RV price tag
The Flighter like feeling is purely due the centreline seating and balanced feeling that comes with the driver being mid mounted.
To get that true jet fighter feeling add a few 000000’s to the RV price tag
I had my head banged by the canopy as the A-4 was rolled unexpectedly. Urban legend? Nope. 720 degrees per sec roll rate? A resounding yes. It was the best Blue Angels platform imho precisely because it was so nimble. Now I cannot speak for my Air Force pilot brethren about the T-38 Talon. Did it roll 720 degrees/sec? I suspect it did but I will defer to them to answer that question.
I've never seen any actual measured data for any version of the A-4 that would support the 720 deg/sec max roll rate claim. For the TA-4J, my measured data says:
The best we could achieve during those tests was 2.2 sec to roll 360 deg, at M0.67. That gives an average roll rate over the 360 deg of about 160 deg/sec, corresponding to a maximum roll rate about 250 deg/sec, depending on the precision of the lateral stick step input. Removing the tanks would slightly improve this number by reducing the roll damping a bit, but most of that is already coming from the wings and tail.
It's a fast roll, at least for me, probably double the max rate of the RV-8. However, the initial roll acceleration of the RV-8 might be better, due to the much lower inertia.
The best we could achieve during those tests was 2.2 sec to roll 360 deg, at M0.67. That gives an average roll rate over the 360 deg of about 160 deg/sec, corresponding to a maximum roll rate about 250 deg/sec, depending on the precision of the lateral stick step input. Removing the tanks would slightly improve this number by reducing the roll damping a bit, but most of that is already coming from the wings and tail.
It's a fast roll, at least for me, probably double the max rate of the RV-8. However, the initial roll acceleration of the RV-8 might be better, due to the much lower inertia.
Enjoy ... Budd Davisson is my favorite good ole' boy pilot reviewer; he really captures it --- if you've been lucky enough to fly one, you know.Ah the urban legend of the A-4 roll rate.
>>Moderator Edit: Keeping the language suitable for "the polite company of strangers" per VAF posting rules.<<
A4 PiRep - Budd Davisson
Last edited:
Norman CYYJ
Well Known Member
I like my IO-360 wooden prop RV-4, it rolls plenty fast enough!
Once again, great data that comports with physics.
AGAIN, you got two drop tanks (fuel in them?) and you're at 25,000 ft. No way you'd come close to 720 in that configuration. Like bringing a one legged man to a butt kicking contest with one arm tied behind his back
Do it again at 15k with no drop tanks.Apologies for feeding the troll.
The stubby wing tips are interesting, but I just looove my ziptips and their little upcurled edge. https://hpaircraftblog.wordpress.com/short-wingtips-for-rv-4-through-rv-8/
Interesting that they have a noticeable improvement on roll rate - something that could be swapped in for competition pretty easily
Interesting that they have a noticeable improvement on roll rate - something that could be swapped in for competition pretty easily
AGAIN, you got two drop tanks (fuel in them?) and you're at 25,000 ft. No way you'd come close to 720 in that configuration. Like bringing a one legged man to a butt kicking contest with one arm tied behind his back
Apologies for feeding the troll.
Here you go. From: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19690022405/downloads/19690022405.pdf
A-4D data, at 15K, clean
And, for all the A-4 single seat models the NATOPS says:
It doesn't specify an absolute maximum roll rate.
Unfortunately your NASA referenced document makes no mention that I can find of "Pmax - deg/sec". Only reference I see is on page 35 and that only refers to stability augmentation system. I have to admit that my calc and diffy q's calculations have long left my days as an aerospace engineer at Boat School. I like being an operator more than a calculator.
You are correct that NATOPS stated not to exceed 360 degrees of roll. Nothing said you couldn't roll, stop, roll, stop, roll, stop to your hearts content. Sadly I do not have my old NATOPS manual to quote that verbatim. Fuel tanks, MERs, pylons and ordnance will most definitely affect roll rate depending on which stations they are mounted on. Completely irrelevant information for an RV-8.
To put all this nonsense to rest, my only mention was that the RV-8 does not roll as fast as an A4. Period, end of story. Unfortunately a troll who has never flown an A4 decided to question that roll rate (and that of the T38) and hence we're in this endless discussion. Like has been mentioned before, roll rate does not a combat aircraft make. It simply does not come into play in a rolling or flat scissors environment. A rapid reversal from a two circle fight to a single circle fight or vice versa is one of the few instances where that rapid roll rate will come to play. Thrust, high alpha, pitch rates get you the win and not necessarily in that order. You can choose to believe thousands of Naval Aviators who have flown. multiple A4 models, or not. Completely irrelevant to the OP's question. My answer remains the same, the RV-8 does not roll as fast as an A4.
Cheers, Carlos out.
Man…a fact. I love that. Great post!!!
Not only do the HP tips allow a noticeably faster roll rate…but all the buffeting on the stick is gone, on my 6…I’m super impressed with these tips in every single facet of flight.The stubby wing tips are interesting, but I just looove my ziptips and their little upcurled edge. https://hpaircraftblog.wordpress.com/short-wingtips-for-rv-4-through-rv-8/
Interesting that they have a noticeable improvement on roll rate - something that could be swapped in for competition pretty easily
Love mine!
Wow!! What a post. Here’s my two bits - for a normal human without a $10M portfolio, the RV8 is almost the second best thing. However….. for pure fun and almost fighter-like handling, the RV4 is without comparison in an affordable, attainable airplane. I’ve built and owned two RV8’s and two RV4’s - along with two RV6’s (my current ride…. for my wife). The RV8 is wonderful, but the RV4 is an extension of your body that you can’t imagine until you’ve experienced it. It reads your mind. I’ve regretted every RV I’ve sold, but none more than my last 180hp RV4.
Last edited:
Totally agree. I love my 6 cuz it lets my wife and kids enjoy and learn easier, sitting next to me….but I miss my 4 more than I can say!
I've LITERALLY been searching for that Air Progress TA-4J article since I first read it in 1975 (at 18!). I could NEVER find it. THANK YOU SIR!
To get that true jet fighter feeling add a few 000000’s to the RV price tag
That price tag would include a thrust to weight ratio of somewhere near 1.0
I am not a fighter pilot but have had flights in (or got to fly) a T-6, P-51 (fighter WII of course) and East European L-39 (fighter trainer/light attack). The answer is NO. This is not the proper way to think of an RV. I have almost 2000 hrs in RV's and I can say one of if not the best personal light plane (Part 23 certified or Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) kit plane I have ever flown in handling and visibility. Disclaimer I am a fan boy for +35 yrs so I am biased.
It has a bubble canopy, tandem seating and center stick (although I know F-16 has a side sticks and you sit leaning back). The seated position of the RV is comfortable and legs are not stretched out straight flat out, like say a glider or early Lancair 235, 320, 360.
What RV's do have is GOOD handling, light (not too light), balanced controls, responsive, solid, and great performance for a SEL piston airplane. Are the RV's the STOL-ist of the STOL? No, but pretty darn good.
Are RV's the fastest of the fast? No. It's not the fastest, but those faster planes tend to be retract gear, with big thirsty engines and fiberglass. FIBERGLASS GLUE AND STRING. No Sir! Ha ha. There are a few RV's that competed at RENO "Sport Class" and do very well (with hopped up engines). Gold typically would go to the Lancair Legacies. However if top speeds of +210 MPH is not fast enough then the RV is not the plane to build. To go faster requires a quantum jump in complexity and cost, not only to build but to fly (fuel burn).
Are RV's the heaviest payload haulers? No, not bad. However you have to be aware of weight of when building.
Do RV's have the longest range or are they the best aerobatic planes? No but they do excel in both.
So to quote Richard "Van" VanGrunsven "Total Performance". So not fighter like but better... at least for a GA pilot who wants a practical great cross country traveling airplane, that CAN also do aerobatics (even competition, sportsman & advanced level), with good low speed performance, that allows operations off of soft field runways, 2000 foot or less (SL light 1000 ft runways no obstacles doable without white knuckles). No fighter aircraft can do that, well except the F35 VTOL or Harrier.
Is it the easiest to fly? That is difficult to answer. My first RV time was in early 90's. As an instructor since I have given RV transition training. I finished my first RV I was a current pilot, tailwheel, CFI who had had flights in RV's from friends. I did first flight very predictable. It was to me like a fast Piper Cub or Citabria, and way easier than an Aeronca 8A or Stearman. The Stearman I only flew in twice, with the actual PIC, but I did do takeoffs and landings. It is "tippy" with higher CG. The Stearman as most know was the WWII trainer that fighter pilots started in. However RV's ARE forgiving, but if you get slow, low, high angles of attack near the ground, aka high sink rate, you will bend landing gear. So fly by the numbers.
RV's are not a C-172's, nor a Lancair IV (known for being one of the least forgiving high performance E-AB's). RV's are honest with no real bad habits, honest feedback, but it requires high performance pilot skills, competency and currency. The Lancair IV is more like a P-51 in wing loading and speeds than an Van's RV. The Lancair IV has a high accident rate due to pilot mishandling (stalls and torque rolls on takeoff, especially the turbine versions). The P-51 is also known for torque roll on takeoff if pilot has Mil power and yanks it into air at lower speed with insufficient aileron control. RV's do not do that. RV's have amazing "Frise" aileron design, large differential deflection. You have to fly the Lancair IV like a Jet, like a fighter, fast ( 95-110 KTS! ) stabilized approaches. So that is closer to fighter. RV's have low stall speeds for such a high top speed, it is a 4 to 1 ratio, top speed to stall. That is AMAZING. This is in part due to the NACA 23013.5 series airfoil (later RV's after RV-8 use a different airfoil) married to a great overall design. Van Da Man came up with a pretty great design with millions of compromises and choices that works well. Perfect? No but what is. To me it is ideal for what I want to do. A fighter would not do what I want.
THEY ONLY WAY TO ANSWER IS GO FLY SOME RV's. Then go fly a F15, F-16, F22, F35.
I think I made my point, in your own mind you can answer the question or understand the short answer is NO. It's a small GA plane not a fighter. BUT as far as being fighter like (aka WWII fighter not jet) the RV can give you that feeling fighter like (great performance, handling, low friction stick control, bubble canopy).
PS I do NOT like WWII replicas. They may LOOK the part, like a miniature clone of a fighter plane they are trying to emulate, but they all fly poorly to bad, at least poorly compared to a Van's aircraft, bar none. (Someone will disagree that is OK.) If you WANT A FIGHTER REPLICA build an RV and give it a military paint job. Then buy a fighter pilot outfit, fight suit "onesie" and put patches all over it. While you are at it get a fighter pilot helmet. I JOKE but seriously good PPE for pilots, head, eye protection and NON flammable clothes, good boots, gloves, is not a bad idea if I am honest. You will be the TALK of the Airport. Go into the airport coffee shop in your get up, oh with a parachute on as well. Ha ha.
It has a bubble canopy, tandem seating and center stick (although I know F-16 has a side sticks and you sit leaning back). The seated position of the RV is comfortable and legs are not stretched out straight flat out, like say a glider or early Lancair 235, 320, 360.
What RV's do have is GOOD handling, light (not too light), balanced controls, responsive, solid, and great performance for a SEL piston airplane. Are the RV's the STOL-ist of the STOL? No, but pretty darn good.
Are RV's the fastest of the fast? No. It's not the fastest, but those faster planes tend to be retract gear, with big thirsty engines and fiberglass. FIBERGLASS GLUE AND STRING. No Sir! Ha ha. There are a few RV's that competed at RENO "Sport Class" and do very well (with hopped up engines). Gold typically would go to the Lancair Legacies. However if top speeds of +210 MPH is not fast enough then the RV is not the plane to build. To go faster requires a quantum jump in complexity and cost, not only to build but to fly (fuel burn).
Are RV's the heaviest payload haulers? No, not bad. However you have to be aware of weight of when building.
Do RV's have the longest range or are they the best aerobatic planes? No but they do excel in both.
So to quote Richard "Van" VanGrunsven "Total Performance". So not fighter like but better... at least for a GA pilot who wants a practical great cross country traveling airplane, that CAN also do aerobatics (even competition, sportsman & advanced level), with good low speed performance, that allows operations off of soft field runways, 2000 foot or less (SL light 1000 ft runways no obstacles doable without white knuckles). No fighter aircraft can do that, well except the F35 VTOL or Harrier.
Is it the easiest to fly? That is difficult to answer. My first RV time was in early 90's. As an instructor since I have given RV transition training. I finished my first RV I was a current pilot, tailwheel, CFI who had had flights in RV's from friends. I did first flight very predictable. It was to me like a fast Piper Cub or Citabria, and way easier than an Aeronca 8A or Stearman. The Stearman I only flew in twice, with the actual PIC, but I did do takeoffs and landings. It is "tippy" with higher CG. The Stearman as most know was the WWII trainer that fighter pilots started in. However RV's ARE forgiving, but if you get slow, low, high angles of attack near the ground, aka high sink rate, you will bend landing gear. So fly by the numbers.
RV's are not a C-172's, nor a Lancair IV (known for being one of the least forgiving high performance E-AB's). RV's are honest with no real bad habits, honest feedback, but it requires high performance pilot skills, competency and currency. The Lancair IV is more like a P-51 in wing loading and speeds than an Van's RV. The Lancair IV has a high accident rate due to pilot mishandling (stalls and torque rolls on takeoff, especially the turbine versions). The P-51 is also known for torque roll on takeoff if pilot has Mil power and yanks it into air at lower speed with insufficient aileron control. RV's do not do that. RV's have amazing "Frise" aileron design, large differential deflection. You have to fly the Lancair IV like a Jet, like a fighter, fast ( 95-110 KTS! ) stabilized approaches. So that is closer to fighter. RV's have low stall speeds for such a high top speed, it is a 4 to 1 ratio, top speed to stall. That is AMAZING. This is in part due to the NACA 23013.5 series airfoil (later RV's after RV-8 use a different airfoil) married to a great overall design. Van Da Man came up with a pretty great design with millions of compromises and choices that works well. Perfect? No but what is. To me it is ideal for what I want to do. A fighter would not do what I want.
THEY ONLY WAY TO ANSWER IS GO FLY SOME RV's. Then go fly a F15, F-16, F22, F35.
I think I made my point, in your own mind you can answer the question or understand the short answer is NO. It's a small GA plane not a fighter. BUT as far as being fighter like (aka WWII fighter not jet) the RV can give you that feeling fighter like (great performance, handling, low friction stick control, bubble canopy).PS I do NOT like WWII replicas. They may LOOK the part, like a miniature clone of a fighter plane they are trying to emulate, but they all fly poorly to bad, at least poorly compared to a Van's aircraft, bar none. (Someone will disagree that is OK.) If you WANT A FIGHTER REPLICA build an RV and give it a military paint job. Then buy a fighter pilot outfit, fight suit "onesie" and put patches all over it. While you are at it get a fighter pilot helmet. I JOKE but seriously good PPE for pilots, head, eye protection and NON flammable clothes, good boots, gloves, is not a bad idea if I am honest. You will be the TALK of the Airport. Go into the airport coffee shop in your get up, oh with a parachute on as well. Ha ha.
Last edited:
Prepperpilot
Well Known Member
Above post. We'll said.
My first impression of the RV-6 that I flew for years was that it handled like the TA-4J that I flew as a student naval aviator. In both aircraft the controls were very light and both aircraft were very responsive to control inputs. I loved the stick position in the RV-6, right back in your lap which was also like the TA-4J. The RV-8 that I now fly is very similar to the RV-6 with the exception of the stick position which is a reach for me. I've adapted and don't notice. The nice thing about RVs is we don't have to wear a g-suit, harness, helmet, etc. We don't have to do extensive briefs and de-briefs, just go out and have a blast. I don't confuse my RV-8 for a fighter but it is pure fun to fly.
Ignoring the metric ton of expenses that come with operating jet fighters, we also get to avoid 1 hour pre brief, 30 min of gearing up in G suits and helmets, multiple ground crew, start carts, and other ground support equipment. You can't share a T-hangar if you own an F16. Don't forget the 1 hour post flight briefing, and of course it would probably be days before your jet fighter was airworthy again without 10 maintenance techs crawling all over it. We also get more baggage space, and the ability to take a passenger without days long training and briefing. Other than your buddies making machine gun sounds over the radio, we don't have to worry about getting shot at, either.
I've never flown true jet fighters, but many of my colleagues have. I think the more sane comparison is the Extra 300 or Gamebird. But for the price point and operating cost, you would have to compare to a Citabria. IMO the 8 blows those away not only in handling feel, but in speed and cool factor.
Unless you're really serious about advanced aerobatics, we can do alot of what the Extra and Gamebird can do for 1/5 or 1/4 of the cost. Smaller hangar, cheaper insurance, less fuel burn, but with better baggage space, cross country capability, etc. There are days when I wish my RV8 was a Gamebird, but most days I'm grateful it's not!
I've never flown true jet fighters, but many of my colleagues have. I think the more sane comparison is the Extra 300 or Gamebird. But for the price point and operating cost, you would have to compare to a Citabria. IMO the 8 blows those away not only in handling feel, but in speed and cool factor.
Unless you're really serious about advanced aerobatics, we can do alot of what the Extra and Gamebird can do for 1/5 or 1/4 of the cost. Smaller hangar, cheaper insurance, less fuel burn, but with better baggage space, cross country capability, etc. There are days when I wish my RV8 was a Gamebird, but most days I'm grateful it's not!
Haha, IF ONLY flying REAL modern fighters was that low of a time commitment for every 0.8-1.5 hr flight. You're missing the 2-4 hours of mission planning even BEFORE getting to the 1 hr pre-brief.
And a ONE hour post flight debrief would be a luxury. Depending on the sortie type and how well or poorly it went - it could be anywhere from 2 to 8 hrs.
I am not a fighter pilot but have had flights in (or got to fly) a T-6, P-51 (fighter WII of course) and East European L-39 (fighter trainer/light attack). The answer is NO. This is not the proper way to think of an RV. I have almost 2000 hrs in RV's and I can say one of if not the best personal light plane (Part 23 certified or Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) kit plane I have ever flown in handling and visibility. Disclaimer I am a fan boy for +35 yrs so I am biased.
It has a bubble canopy, tandem seating and center stick (although I know F-16 has a side sticks and you sit leaning back). The seated position of the RV is comfortable and legs are not stretched out straight flat out, like say a glider or early Lancair 235, 320, 360.
What RV's do have is GOOD handling, light (not too light), balanced controls, responsive, solid, and great performance for a SEL piston airplane. Are the RV's the STOL-ist of the STOL? No, but pretty darn good.
Are RV's the fastest of the fast? No. It not the fastest, but those planes tend to be retract gear, with big thirsty engines and fiberglass. FIBERGLASS GLUE AND STRING. No Sir. Ha ha. There are a few RV's that competed at RENO "Sport Class" and do very well... Gold typically would go to the Lancair Legacies. However if top speeds of +210 MPH is not fast enough then the RV is not the plane to build. To go faster requires a quantum jump in complexity and cost, not only to build but to fly (fuel burn).
Are RV's the heaviest payload haulers? No, not bad. However you have to be aware of weight of when building.
Do RV's have the longest range or are they the best aerobatic planes? No but they do excel in both.
So to quote Richard "Van" VanGrunsven "Total Performance". So not fighter like but better... at least for a GA pilot who wants a practical great cross country traveling airplane, that CAN also do aerobatics (even competition, sportsman & advanced level), with good low speed performance, that allows operations off of soft field runways, 2000 foot or less (SL light 1000 ft runways no obstacles doable without white knuckles). No fighter aircraft can do that, well except the F35 VTOL or Harrier.
Is it the easiest to fly? That is difficult to answer. First RV time was in early 90's. And as an instructor since I have given RV transition training. I finished my first RV as a current as a pilot, tailwheel, CFI who had had flights in RV's from friends. I did first flight very predictable. It was to me like a fast Piper Cub or Citabria, and way easier than an Aeronca 8A or Stearman. The Stearman I only flew in twice, with the actual PIC, but I did do takeoffs and landings. It is "tippy" with higher CG. The Stearman as most know was the WWII trainer that fighter pilots started in. However RV's ARE forgiving, but if you get slow, low, high angles of attack near the ground, aka high sink rate, you will bend landing gear.
RV's are not a C-172's, nor a Lancair IV (known for being one of the least forgiving high performance E-AB's). RV's are honest with no real bad habits, honest feedback, but it requires high performance pilot skills, competency and currency. The Lancair IV is more like a P-51 in wing loading and speeds than an Van's RV. The Lancair IV has a high accident rate due to pilot mishandling (stalls and torque rolls on takeoff, especially the turbine versions). The P-51 is also known for torque roll on takeoff if pilot has Mil power and yanks it into air at lower speed with insufficient aileron control. RV's do not do that. RV's have amazing "Frise" aileron design, large differential deflection. You have to fly the Lancair IV like a Jet, like a fighter, fast ( 95-110 KTS! ) stabilized approaches. So that is closer to fighter. RV's have low stall speeds for such a high top speed, it is a 4 to 1 ratio, top speed to stall. That is AMAZING. This is in part due to the NACA 23013.5 series airfoil (later RV's after RV-8 use a different airfoil) married to a great overall design. Van Da Man came up with a pretty great design with millions of compromises and choices that works well. Perfect? No but what is. To me it is ideal for what I want to do. A fighter would not do what I want.
THEY ONLY WAY TO ANSWER IS GO FLY SOME RV's. Then go fly a F15, F-16, F22, F35.
PS I do NOT like WWII replicas. They may LOOK the part, like a miniature clone of a fighter plane they are trying to emulate, but they all fly poorly to bad, at least poorly compared to a Van's aircraft, bar none. (Someone will disagree that is OK.) If you WANT A FIGHTER REPLICA build an RV and give it a military paint job. Then buy a fighter pilot outfit, fight suit "onesie" and put patches all over it. While you are at it get a fighter pilot helmet. I JOKE but seriously good PPE for pilots, head, eye protection and NON flammable clothes, good boots, gloves, is not a bad idea if I am honest. You will be the TALK of the Airport. Go into the airport coffee shop in your get up, oh with a parachute on as well. Ha ha.
Excellent summation!! I can hear Paul Harvey reading this...
Good day!!
I own an RV-8 and owned a P-51 in my younger days(3000 + hours flying them). I agree with you, no comparison.
I also have a good bit of AF fighter time followed by 15 years of my retirement helping develop the F35 weapons and avionics systems that included several thousand hours of test time in Lockheed's F35 CATB flying F35 avionics test lab and Lockheed's Fort Worth F35 test labs and simulators. Getting to help birth a 5th Gen Fighter Plane was a Dream (& Nightmare) come true. What I got out of all of this was a burning desire to build and fly my own RV8, and I wanted it to be more than just an awesome airplane, I wanted it to have some of the fighter plane like systems that modern fighter aircraft also have. So my RV8 mini-fighter plane checklist is as follows;
1) I wanted a great honest smooth flying well coordinated tandem seated aircraft with a great fighter like view and roll back canopy. As most fighter pilots would agree you and your airplane need to become 1, so that you know your aircrafts flight envelope with confidence and can use that envelope to the fullest when needed. Choosing the RV8 to build and fly was actually never in question to fill the first part of my checklist. Its not like any fighter plane or jet I've ever flown, but its a great aircraft and the fighter plane part has been left up to me to fill in.
2) My F4 flying taught me that an Aural and Visual AOA system will without a doubt help teach me what that flight envelope is, give me subtle clues when I'm flying inside my flight envelope, and aggressively alert me when I'm flying along the edges of my flight envelope. For that reason I became a founding member of the FlyOnSpeed AOA team and have one of our Gen2 AOA systems in my RV8. Having a real AOA system definitely gives a fighter plane aspect to my RV8 experience. Yes fly by wire fighter planes don't have and use AOA like the F4 did, but AOA is still a critical part of the aircraft flight computer and avionics and the AOA information is shown and used at times by the pilot.
3) All fighter planes also have a HUD of some sort, so my son and I set out along with several other folks to build a modern type HUD that I was motivated to integrate and install into my RV8. With all my years in the F35 avionics world to say I was spoiled is an understatement. But to complete the RV8 transition to a little Fighter Plane my first thought was a HMD (Helmet Mounted Display), but it was quickly obvious that was a bit to far, so we started by developing our own basic HUD software that is driven real time using the aircraft flight and NAV data available from modern experimental avionics such as Garmin, Dynon, MGL, etc. Using established fighter HUD graphics designs like from the F16, F18, and other systems we designed our own HUD graphics and experimented first with the HUDLY, a Car HUD, then I moved to the Epic Optix aircraft quality HUD. To complete a RV8 Fighter HUD you need to include Gunsight modes in the HUD, so the software includes both a fixed (un-ranged) Gun Funnel mode that has wingspan modes for 25ft, 30ft, and 35ft, and a F16 LCOS mode using differential ADSB ranging and displayed on target range circle . The computer finds the nearest ADSB target from ownship and provides a range circle from 9k feet to 100 feet. All Tgt info is also digitally displayed such as N-number, range, etc. All HUD modes are selectable using a small 10 key keypad. The EPIC OPTIX HUD will not fit on many of the Vans Aircraft that don't even have a dashboard. So we have also developed an AR (Augmented Reality) version of the HUD, right now the AR Glasses have a fixed forward view only HUD display but we are working hard to develop a Head Tracking version (say F35 HMD like - but some $399,400.00 cheaper).
To sum this all up. My RV8 and the awesome world experimental aircraft aviation has created has provided me all the RV8 fighter plane I imagined it could be. Hopefully the pictures and video below will give you an idea as to how this all works. You can also hear the OnSpeeed system "Fast" tone come on several times toward the end of the video. Due to aircraft vibration affecting the HUD camera the video is less than perfect but the cockpit HUD view is smooth, and my RV8 is in a turn that flys through the morning sun several times but the HUD never becomes unreadable or washed out.
More Info is available at FlyOnSpeed.org/hud and Tronview.org
See my "RV8" Gun Camera Demo Video at--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BEmGv72IiI
1) I wanted a great honest smooth flying well coordinated tandem seated aircraft with a great fighter like view and roll back canopy. As most fighter pilots would agree you and your airplane need to become 1, so that you know your aircrafts flight envelope with confidence and can use that envelope to the fullest when needed. Choosing the RV8 to build and fly was actually never in question to fill the first part of my checklist. Its not like any fighter plane or jet I've ever flown, but its a great aircraft and the fighter plane part has been left up to me to fill in.
2) My F4 flying taught me that an Aural and Visual AOA system will without a doubt help teach me what that flight envelope is, give me subtle clues when I'm flying inside my flight envelope, and aggressively alert me when I'm flying along the edges of my flight envelope. For that reason I became a founding member of the FlyOnSpeed AOA team and have one of our Gen2 AOA systems in my RV8. Having a real AOA system definitely gives a fighter plane aspect to my RV8 experience. Yes fly by wire fighter planes don't have and use AOA like the F4 did, but AOA is still a critical part of the aircraft flight computer and avionics and the AOA information is shown and used at times by the pilot.
3) All fighter planes also have a HUD of some sort, so my son and I set out along with several other folks to build a modern type HUD that I was motivated to integrate and install into my RV8. With all my years in the F35 avionics world to say I was spoiled is an understatement. But to complete the RV8 transition to a little Fighter Plane my first thought was a HMD (Helmet Mounted Display), but it was quickly obvious that was a bit to far, so we started by developing our own basic HUD software that is driven real time using the aircraft flight and NAV data available from modern experimental avionics such as Garmin, Dynon, MGL, etc. Using established fighter HUD graphics designs like from the F16, F18, and other systems we designed our own HUD graphics and experimented first with the HUDLY, a Car HUD, then I moved to the Epic Optix aircraft quality HUD. To complete a RV8 Fighter HUD you need to include Gunsight modes in the HUD, so the software includes both a fixed (un-ranged) Gun Funnel mode that has wingspan modes for 25ft, 30ft, and 35ft, and a F16 LCOS mode using differential ADSB ranging and displayed on target range circle . The computer finds the nearest ADSB target from ownship and provides a range circle from 9k feet to 100 feet. All Tgt info is also digitally displayed such as N-number, range, etc. All HUD modes are selectable using a small 10 key keypad. The EPIC OPTIX HUD will not fit on many of the Vans Aircraft that don't even have a dashboard. So we have also developed an AR (Augmented Reality) version of the HUD, right now the AR Glasses have a fixed forward view only HUD display but we are working hard to develop a Head Tracking version (say F35 HMD like - but some $399,400.00 cheaper).
To sum this all up. My RV8 and the awesome world experimental aircraft aviation has created has provided me all the RV8 fighter plane I imagined it could be. Hopefully the pictures and video below will give you an idea as to how this all works. You can also hear the OnSpeeed system "Fast" tone come on several times toward the end of the video. Due to aircraft vibration affecting the HUD camera the video is less than perfect but the cockpit HUD view is smooth, and my RV8 is in a turn that flys through the morning sun several times but the HUD never becomes unreadable or washed out.
More Info is available at FlyOnSpeed.org/hud and Tronview.org
See my "RV8" Gun Camera Demo Video at--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BEmGv72IiI
Last edited:
This is pretty amazing work, I can only imagine where this tech will go, probably in the direction of wearable glasses of some kind- similar to the stuff you worked on for the F35. I fly with the HUD on the 737 and would love to have a HUD on the RV8, but that is about 15 projects down the list!
As the tech has advanced- have you given any more thought to a wearable (helmet type) device?
Great post!
OK: It's easy to forget......or not know in the first place......the number of AMAZINGLY COOL and INTELIGENT, TALENTED, KNOWLEDGEABLE and just downright AMAZING people we have on this forum. There is no other place that I am aware of that provides the level of well-thought-out information and ideas than the VAN'S AIRFORCE forum!! Thanks, Doug, for providing this amazing platform and THANK YOU to all the amazing people who are willing to sit down at their computers and share their ideas, knowledge and expertise with us commoners! I am humbled to be in your presence! And I'm not just saying that!
PS: made your 2026 contribution yet.......?
OK: It's easy to forget......or not know in the first place......the number of AMAZINGLY COOL and INTELIGENT, TALENTED, KNOWLEDGEABLE and just downright AMAZING people we have on this forum. There is no other place that I am aware of that provides the level of well-thought-out information and ideas than the VAN'S AIRFORCE forum!! Thanks, Doug, for providing this amazing platform and THANK YOU to all the amazing people who are willing to sit down at their computers and share their ideas, knowledge and expertise with us commoners! I am humbled to be in your presence! And I'm not just saying that!
PS: made your 2026 contribution yet.......?
The biggest difference IMO between the fighters I flew (F-18 / F-16) and the RV-8 is the lack of regard for limitations the modern fighters allow.
In the Hornet or Viper you can pull on the stick with impunity. Fly by wire laws will keep you from pulling the wings off. Rarely you might overstress the jet, but even then the chances of breaking anything are slim. Don’t pull the RV-8 stick to the stop at VNE.
What was the Vne / Mmo in the Hornet? No idea. It wouldn’t get there if you tried (we did…a lot). The Viper would get to 800kts if you weren’t paying attention, but again….you weren’t worried about flutter and airframe breakup.
So, the RV-8 is a sport plane. It is a great sport plane, and gives a fighter like feel to the pilot with the tandem seating, canopy, quick handing etc…but it is not “carefree” like the modern fighters are.
The closest comparison IMO is with a military primary trainer. T-34, T-6B etc…
That’s the biggest different in my opinion.
In the Hornet or Viper you can pull on the stick with impunity. Fly by wire laws will keep you from pulling the wings off. Rarely you might overstress the jet, but even then the chances of breaking anything are slim. Don’t pull the RV-8 stick to the stop at VNE.
What was the Vne / Mmo in the Hornet? No idea. It wouldn’t get there if you tried (we did…a lot). The Viper would get to 800kts if you weren’t paying attention, but again….you weren’t worried about flutter and airframe breakup.
So, the RV-8 is a sport plane. It is a great sport plane, and gives a fighter like feel to the pilot with the tandem seating, canopy, quick handing etc…but it is not “carefree” like the modern fighters are.
The closest comparison IMO is with a military primary trainer. T-34, T-6B etc…
That’s the biggest different in my opinion.
skylor
Well Known Member
You mean Maverick really could slam the controls stop to stop?
Tell us a little about the cockpit size of the -8 vs the -18 and the -16...
Skylor
You mean Maverick really could slam the controls stop to stop?
Tell us a little about the cockpit size of the -8 vs the -18 and the -16...
Skylor
Haha, yes. If you were aggressively maneuvering the stick in the Rhino hit the stop often…even the forward stop. When was the last time you hit the forward stop in an RV? ;-)
The RV-8 cockpit always felt similar to the Hornet to me, maybe a little smaller, but mitigated by the lack of flight gear. The Viper is another story. It was *tiny*. Truly an airplane you strapped on. It would have been claustrophobic if it wasn’t for that incredible canopy….
Attachments
Last edited:
Tron, I LOVE your RV-8 HUD!!! Especially the funnel and LCOS "gun" sight. I'm hoping you have a recording system included so you can go back and prove to your buddy that you got RATRs/BATRs on him or her.
I get why you need that extension of the mount into the cockpit from the edge of the glare shield, presumably to get the right focal length to project the HUD symbology. But do you find it gets in your way at all?
Have you thought about having it project upward from inside the panel onto the HUD collimating glass?
Final and most important question is: How do I get one of these??
Haha, yeah - the RV-8 reminds me of the Eagle cockpit while the RV-4 is definitely a Viper cockpit analogue. You are definitely "wearing" an RV-4.
skylor
Well Known Member
Every time I fly! (during the control check).
Thanks for the compliment, the HUD I use is from Epic Optix and the design is fixed, the extension from the panel has a special mirror on the backside of the controls which is needed to reflect the HUD LED projector image onto the combining glass focused at infinity. As I have come to fully appreciate building a HUD that really works in full daylight, in Color, good resolution, and that cost less than the RV8 is not easy , Epic Optix sells this one for $1500 dollars. My son and I write the software that integrates with the avionics and drives the HUD graphics. Send me a PM and I’ll explain more of the details.
The Extra 300 and 330 I flew only did 165 KTAS.. RVs do 170-175 TAS.
MJ Schatz
I'm New Here
I don’t know about fighter stuff, but from what I’m reading about shooting down some of these drones, I think the RV-8 might be a great drone hunter with some kind of weapon system that shoots shotgun like rounds.
That said, I only have 10 hours of RV-8 time now. Bought an 8 two years ago and restored the fwf with a Penn Yan OH, new Hartzell Prop and some other stuff. Got it flying 2 weeks ago, after some training with Bryan at Flight Check Solutions.
That said, I only have 10 hours of RV-8 time now. Bought an 8 two years ago and restored the fwf with a Penn Yan OH, new Hartzell Prop and some other stuff. Got it flying 2 weeks ago, after some training with Bryan at Flight Check Solutions.
