Objective Comparison?
Periodically and invariably, someone asks the nosewheel versus tailwheel question, and it's like throwing a match in a tank of avgas! You'll never see more mayhem! This thread arguably belongs in Doug's "Never Ending Debate" section!
Several years ago, in an obviously vain attempt to inject some civility and objectivity into the RV-8 vs. RV-8A debate, I tried to draft an ?objective? RV-8/8A comparison. My attempt wasn?t very effective then, and probably won?t help now, but below is my latest iteration. Sorry, I just couldn?t resist! Let the debate (friendly debate, right?!) rage on!
Bill Palmer
RV-8/8A OBJECTIVE COMPARISON (Attempt #3, Aug. 9, 2010)
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? Per the NTSB records, 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. (My source for the insurance cost data was a circa-2004 report from the 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). 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 is an easy-landing tri-gear . . . as long as you keep the nosewheel off as long as possible (no pneumatic shock) and monitor the nosewheel's breakout force (no shimmy damper). 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.) From the NTSB online database, from Jan 2000 to Aug 2010, the ?failure to maintain directional control on landing?-type accidents/incidents were: RV-8: 8; RV-8A: 2.
PROP STRIKES: The RV-8A has a built-in prop protector (nose gear). The RV-8?s prop is more vulnerable to pilot error such as excessive braking, a bounced landing, ground loop, or a too-enthusiastic run-up. Of course, in the rare case of an RV-8 or 8A flip-over the props are equally vulnerable. From the NTSB online database, from Jan 2000 to Aug 2010, I found 2 RV-8 flip-overs, 2 RV-8A flip-overs, and 1 RV-8 prop strike (excessive braking). On the other hand, I wonder how many taildragger prop strikes are actually reported.
TAXI VISIBILITY: The 8 is "Adequate" with minor (or no) "S" turning required. The 8A is "Outstanding? with excellent forward visibility.
BACKSEATER: In the rare case of front-seat pilot illness or incapacitation, the 8 is more difficult to land for a "novice" backseater (non-pilot or no tailwheel time). Backseaters seem to like the 8A better for ground operations, because they are sitting higher, have better visibility, and aren?t looking at their knees. Also, the 8 normally sways from side-to-side a little when taxiing and landing; not an entirely comfortable feeling for a ?newbie? passenger.
TOLERANCE OF BRAKE FAILURE: The 8 has a steerable tailwheel for maintaining directional control after rudder control becomes ineffective. It's still rolling somewhere (brake failure), but at least you can keep the 8 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 8 or 8A, 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. Some RV-8 pilots routinely do this as they park (the ?ramp spin?).
Final Note: Brake Failure is apparently not a common problem for the RV-8 or 8A. From the NTSB online database, from Jan 2000 to Aug 2010, I could not find any RV-8 or 8A brake failure as a cause for an accident/incident.
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 long unless they're clearly overpriced relative to the current market.
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 does not recall nostalgic, romantic images of World War II fighters and airshow aerobats as the 8 definitely does. Frankly, it's a "personal preference" when it comes to looks and image.
PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION DIFFERENCES:
RV-8: Gear Towers, Steel Slab Main Gear, Tail Wheel Assembly
RV-8A: Engine Mount (Nose Gear Mount), Steel Rod Nose Gear, Lower Cowl Slot/Cover (to clear the Nose Gear), Main Gear Weldments, Steel Rod Main Gear, Boarding Step
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.
Both the RV-8 and 8A are 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 easy-landing 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!