RV-8 vs RV-8A

[Bill Palmer]

Insurance

Thanks, Alan

Yes, you are correct. There were 3 RV-8A landing phase accidents/incidents between Jan. 1, 2000 and Aug. 1, 2010. Of those 3, 2 are in the category ?failure to maintain directional control upon landing,? and one was identified as ?the failure of the nose landing gear strut for undetermined reasons.? Due to the ?cause? language of this third one, I incorrectly miscounted it.

As far as the landing phase is concerned, here are the NTSB stats from Jan. 1, 2000 to Aug. 1, 2010 as I have recounted them today:

RV-8: Total 10 landing phase accidents/incidents of which 2 included nose-overs.

RV-8A: Total 3 landing phase accidents/incidents of which all 3 ended up in nose-overs. One of these (the ?strut?) was clearly the result of landing on a turf runway with a ?small bump.? Hopefully, increased pilot awareness about landing, or not landing, an RV-8A on a grass strip plus the latest nose gear mods (new fork, new adjustable axles, spacers, wheels, etc.) will help mitigate RV-8A, and other ?A? model, nose-overs.

NOTE: In the NTSB database, I discounted 2 RV-8 reports (Velocity strike; car strike), 1 RV-8A report (RV-6A brake failure/strike), and 1 ?RV-8F? report, because I could not tell if the ?F? was for ?Fighter? (RV-8) or a typo (?F? instead of ?A?).

Correctly, you point out that there are many more RV-8s in the FAA registry: a ratio of 860/240 RV-8?s to RV-8A?s (3.6 RV-8?s to each RV-8A); 1,100 total RV-8/8A?s registered. Van?s reports a total of 992 RV-8/8A?s flying. Van?s apparently does not report the ratio of RV-8 to 8A?s flying or kits sold.

From the landing phase accidents/incidents reported in the NTSB database and considering the relative number of RV-8?s and 8A?s registered, it would seem that the RV-8 and RV-8A are fairly equal in terms of landing phase accident/incident RATE. From the NTSB data, it would appear that Falcon?s circa-2004 report is not correct unless there is some unreported RV-8 exposure (minor ground loops, prop strikes, or whatever) that the insurance companies see in terms of claims, but the NTSB does not see in terms of formally-reported accidents/incidents. Unless an insurance company speaks up relative to their actuarial statistics versus the NTSB database, we cannot determine what is really going on here.

Also, from an insurance standpoint, it could be that the RV-8 is being assigned an average level of ?taildragger? risk which it does not deserve compared to, say, a Luscombe or Pitts. I believe this is called ?spreading the risk.? Again, without an insurance company speaking up, we have no way to decipher this factor, either.

I guess the bottom line for me is that if I owned an RV-8 and had over 100 hours of tailwheel time, some of it recent, I would want to know WHY my hull insurance is higher than an equivalent RV-8A?s if, in fact, it is.

From a liability standpoint, there might be some justification for higher RV-8 insurance rates based on bodily injury.

From the NTSB database, for Jan. 1, 2000 to Aug. 1, 2010, there were 30 total reported RV-8 accidents/incidents and 5 total reported for the RV-8A; a ratio of 6:1.

Of the 30 reported RV-8 accidents/incidents, 7 resulted in RV-8 occupant fatalities and 4 more resulted in serious injuries; a ratio of accidents/incidents to fatalities plus serious injuries of 3:1.

Of the 5 reported RV-8A accidents/incidents, 1 resulted in a fatality; there were no other serious injuries reported (5:1).

Of course, we are not dealing with enough numbers to make any of this statistically valid, but it does appear that the RV-8 has higher exposure to bodily injury. After looking at the NTSB reports, it is my personal opinion that this higher exposure has nothing to do with the RV-8?s design. On the other hand, it may have something to do with the conditions under which RV-8?s are sometimes operated. I leave it up to the readers to determine what is going on with the RV-8?s fatality/injury rate.

Based on the NTSB data alone, I would personally conclude that the RV-8?s insurance rate should be a little higher than the RV-8A?s due to liability (bodily injury), but not hull damage. Of course, insurance company actuarial statistics based on actual claims could completely reverse this perspective, but I personally have no access to this data. Unless an insurance company provides relevant data, we have no way of knowing what drives insurance costs. We only know how to ?comparison shop!?

My ?gut? feel is that RV-8?s do cost more to insure, on the average, than RV-8A?s, but I must admit that it is difficult to prove how much more RV-8?s might cost or what might be driving this: pilot experience/proficiency, injury rate, actual claims, or whatever. I will say that I would not understand why an RV-8?s insurance rate would be any more than about 10% higher than an equivalent RV-8A?s. On the other hand, I suppose the difference could be higher if the RV-8?s apparent higher injury rate is a big deal, cost-wise, for the insurance companies.

Certainly, for pilots with substantially less than 100 hours tailwheel time, insuring an RV-8 would understandably be somewhat more expensive. For pilots/builders with over 100 hours of tailwheel time, particularly including several hours of recent time in type (tailwheel RV), then the insurance delta between the 8 and the 8A could easily be quite small or even nonexistent. Without insurance company data or some sort of RV-8 versus RV-8A insurance cost study, it is very difficult to quantify any insurance cost delta. We must rely on forum member?s experiences, the NTSB database, and our mutual, consensus ?gut? feel!

BOTTOM LINE: I?m ready to throw out what I previously wrote under the ?insurance? section of the ?objective? comparison, but I?m not quite sure what to put in its place! Does anyone want to take a crack at it? I?m out of creativity, and objectivity, for now!

Thanks,

Bill

 

[Alan Carroll]

...there are many more RV-8s in the FAA registry: a ratio of 860/240 RV-8?s to RV-8A?s (3.6 RV-8?s to each RV-8A); 1,100 total RV-8/8A?s registered. Van?s reports a total of 992 RV-8/8A?s flying. Van?s apparently does not report the ratio of RV-8 to 8A?s flying or kits sold...

From the NTSB database, for Jan. 1, 2000 to Aug. 1, 2010, there were 30 total reported RV-8 accidents/incidents and 5 total reported for the RV-8A; a ratio of 6:1.

Bill - regarding numbers flying, my understanding is that Van's relies on self-reporting of completions rather than FAA data for their count. The extra airplanes in the registry may have received an AW certificate but haven't yet flown, or else did not made a first flight report to Van's.

That's interesting about the total accident rates. Also perplexing, since the 8 and 8A are the same airplane once off the ground.

 

[wera710]

vote straight 8

I vote straight 8. Nothing against the -8A. I am basing this soley if your ONLY concern is tail dragger v. nose gear. Its really a non-issue.

The -8 is a pussy cat on landing. If you can land a cub or a citabria or a luscombe or a champ, you already have what it takes. Now its just an issue of speed management. The foot work is nothing mind blowing or scary.

And don't listen to all these guys harping that the 8 does not like to three point. They chose to make theirs nose heavy, so too bad on them. Mine three points fine and I do it every time, sometimes even tail first when I screw up. Full fuel, low fuel, whatever. It can do it. Tail-high wheel landings will bounce you way more if you are not careful. Tail low ones are ok.
POINT is, build it right and don't stuff every peice of equipment up front, including the battery, and three pointers are cake.

Anyway, performance is a wash between the 8 and 8A. knot here, knot there...really, who cares. Let the engineer weenies stress about it. So you get there a few seconds faster. Big whoop. They are close enough to mean little in the REAL world. I think its more critical how silly you get with extras. We know a guy whos 8A is an airliner, gadget wise, and you can't even do acro with it. I am sure there are 8s out there with the same problem. Some folks forget the meaning of Sport in Sport Plane. So just choose wisely with panels and accessories and performance will not suffer.

One Truly critical difference is nose gear strength. If you plan on short and dirty fields or rough fields, the 8A may present more issues for you if you fly sloppy and I can not recommend going into some places. None of the A series nose gears are exactly Hard Core and you CAN hurt them. Badly. Which is the main reason I selected the 8. You can take it anywhere. Including places that will damage paint. I wanted that in a sport plane. If you plan on always flying onto perfect pavement, the the 8A is as good a choice as the 8. All comes down to priorities and preferences.

Neither 8 or 8A takes a "Super Pilot". They do take some getting used too in terms of the new speed ranges v. Champs or C-150s et cetera, but any stick and rudder guy can adapt pretty quick.

Heck, the most dissapointing thing I discovered about the 8 series is that you do not need nearly as much foot work as I like! Stinking rudder is about an afterthought in flight. I actually miss having to use it in a positive and coordinated manner!

 

[sandifer]

Stinking rudder is about an afterthought in flight. I actually miss having to use it in a positive and coordinated manner!

Then start doing aerobatics! ...except then you'll mostly likely be using it in a non-coordinated manner.

 

[wera710]

Thanks, Alan

Also, from an insurance standpoint, it could be that the RV-8 is being assigned an average level of ?taildragger? risk which it does not deserve compared to, say, a Luscombe or Pitts. ,

Bill

You've GOT TO BE JOKING. Comparing the Luscombe to a Pitts in piloting skill during the landing phase or insurance is completely LAUGHABLE. It is also a very uninformed and often repeated comment, thanks to so many poorly skilled aviation magazine writers who could not tell the difference between a rudder pedal and a throttle in the 1960s when they all cut their teeth of aircraft of zero skill requirements, ei: the ubiquitous C-150.

Insurance rates for Luscombes are dirt cheap. I should know. I flew em for 25 years. It was dirt cheap when I transitioned to one from a C-150 and it was dirt cheap when I compared it to an RV. Contrary to urban legand, Luscombes do not require hairy chested he-man pilots to handle. They are docile, easy to fly and quite a steal when measuring cost v. performance. AND they are a dream to land. No worse then a Cub. With even better over the nose visabiliy. But I digress.

Typical Luscombe insurance: $600 - $800.
Typical RV-8 insirance: $1800 for a newby.

 

[Bill Palmer]

Luscombe

Scott,

I stand corrected; I think. From http://luscombe.org/index.php?page=f-a-q#Q45

?Q45: Are Luscombe's really as tricky to land as they say?

A45: No. Most of the stories you hear are from pilots who are less proficient than they wish to have you believe. The airplane is very responsive and light on the controls. To some this means that the airplane is unmanageable. It is NOT a Cessna 152, a Cub or Citabria and does require that you learn to understand and use ALL THREE axis controls independently and in concert with one another to fly well.?

Like others, I have heard from many taildragger pilots that Luscombe?s are relatively difficult to land due to their narrow gear, but apparently it?s a myth; particularly in comparison to something like a Pitts.

The point I was trying to make concerning ?spreading the risk? was in favor of the RV-8 which I assumed (possibly incorrectly?) was easier to land than a Luscombe.

Bill (Laughable, Joking Bill)

 

[sandifer]

I think all this "easier to land" talk is pretty irrelevant, and largely propelled by hearsay and tall hangar tales. The easiest airplane to land is probably the one you are most current in, regardless of type. There are too many variables that contribute to how "easy" someone considers an airplane to be during landing, and too many individual preferences to make general statements.

Plus, all airplanes are a continuum...it's one-to-the-next, and how big the gap to the next is depends on your previous experience. You adjust to each new airplane, and after awhile it becomes "normal"....even a bungee geared Pitts S-1S, which is arguably the least forgiving of clumsy rudder inputs of any airplane out there. I can attest to that, and it's what I'm most current in at the moment. Yes, it may be "hard" at first if you're used to a Champ (maybe the most forgiving of 'em), but you adjust and then it's no longer hard.

But at the moment, my Pitts landings are better than those I'm making in the Clipped Cub I just started flying, even though the Cub has much friendlier, forgiving characteristics. Again - all about currency. As far as ground handling goes, I'd bet a Luscombe is in right in between the Champ and the Pitts...kinda how I feel about RVs.