What's new
Van's Air Force

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

What's Checkoway up to? RV-8?

Guy Prevost

Guy Prevost

Well Known Member
Has anyone else noticed that there is an RV-8 mentioned in Dan Checkoway's signature recently? I've seen it here [ed. and?] in the Matronics forums.

Since nose gear failures and the perils of electronic ignition seem to be the main topics of conversation this weekend I thought I would bring up a more interesting, less annoying topic. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I noticed his sig on the Yahoo RV8 group ... "RV-8 [tail#] 0 hours"...
looks like the cat's outta the bag.
The real question is, will there be an rvproject.com for us -8 builders to cheat off of now? :)

T.
 
TShort said:
I noticed his sig on the Yahoo RV8 group ... "RV-8 [tail#] 0 hours"...
looks like the cat's outta the bag.
The real question is, will there be an rvproject.com for us -8 builders to cheat off of now? :)

T.
Click to expand...
I do not think that Dan will do another web site for the -8. He has many irons in the fire and building the -8 will take up all his free time that he does not spend with his wife.

There would be TWO identical RV-8s going together side by side if I had the time to put into another project. If I had the time to do that, I would find the time to do the web site.

In the mean time, Randy's http://www.rv-8.com still there.
 
I sure hope so...

... 'cos he'll build way faster than me even though I'm half way through the fuse, and then I can ask him loads of questions! :D
 
I wonder if it will be a "Super 8"

I'd have to put my money on yes it will be!

From what I can tell Dan is more into formation flying than acro.
And the Super 8 would have to be sweet for formation work.

Mark
 
Nope, I already talked to him about it... Basically he wants to clone his -7 and make it tandem. He even went so far as to mention that he'd love to just be able to put a few hours of work and convert the -7 to a -8.

Don't think soo... anyway: Dan plans on putting on the same old IO-360-A1B6 like his -7 has. Don't blame him as he was out running Scotts -7a with an IO390 this weekend. Just build light and straight...
 
While you guys were yapping about me, :D I was out flying my RV-7, and then I finally started working on the -8 this afternoon. HS rear spar...woohoo! Gotta start somewhere.

I thought I mentioned it before, but I'm over the side-by-side thing. I don't want to bump elbows with my passengers anymore. And I've convinced myself that it's worth having a slider bar in front of me in order to have my own space. I do love the -7's tip-up view...the -8's slider is gonna take some adjusting to. But I'll take it. I want my own space. I'm taking the "self-centered airplane" concept (if you've flown with me you know what I mean...no brakes, no engine controls, no instruments, you're lucky if you get a stick...it's all about ME) to the next level.

This selfish talk is kinda tongue in cheek. I've given more than 150 different people rides in the -7 in 3 years. That's an average of one new victim per week. I think I've done my part, so to speak, in terms of "spreading the love." I want my selfish little airplane now, especially if I'm willing to sweat through the process of building it. My wife is onboard with having her own space, too. So, cool...RV-8 it is.

Like Stephen was saying, the -8 is going to be almost identical to my -7 other than the seating config.

You won't see me build a Super 8 -- for similar reasons why you won't see me own a Rocket. Cost per mile and cost per hour is very high on my list of priorities. I have yet to fly alongside ANY RV that can beat my RV-7 economy-wise (granted, I haven't flown alongside Tracy or Dave). The RV-8 will be the same or better (slipperier airframe).

And you won't see me putting a 390 in there, either. Angle valve 360 for sure. I stand by my claim that the IO-360-A1B6 is where the speed-with-economy curve peaks. Like I did on the -7, I'll make up for the heavy engine in other ways.

Web site for the -8? No way. When I started my -7 there weren't many comprehensive web logs for the -7. Now they're a dime a dozen! And they all look the same. Same with the -8. Not gonna reinvent that wheel. I'm stealing everybody else's ideas at this point, so why bother putting up some extensive web site about that?! Got better things to do...like fly this sweet little RV-7... :D

Look for a first flight report and an "RV-7 For Sale" sometime around 2011!
 
Me me me

Dude, keep the -7 and build a -3 instead of the -8! The RV-3 is the quintessential (sp?) "me" airplane!
 
DarinFred said:
Dude, keep the -7 and build a -3 instead of the -8! The RV-3 is the quintessential (sp?) "me" airplane!
Click to expand...
Nah, too tight for me. I want 42 gal capacity stock and "designer approved" 200hp capability. The -7/-8 serves my mission profile (SAFE, unquestionably rock solid reliable, CHEAP & FAST travel at the drop of a hat, formation, light acro, IFR if need be) pretty much perfectly.
 
Pirkka said:
Are you going to paint your 7 before selling or keep your deposit for 8? :D
Click to expand...
As a buyer, I would rather buy an unpainted plane and paint it how I wanted it. Plus, you never know what a paint job is hiding... In a way I think having it be an open canvas for the next guy actually adds value!
 
Side by Side 8's

On the subject of 8's, here's how to do it effeciently.
rv85jtand6jt006dn3.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]
After completing my 8 in Dec. and selling it in March, I took advantage of Van's having 2 QB 8's in stock.
Both planes commenced on March 15, 2007 in my 1000 sq. ft. shop in basement.
I'm actually keeping a builders log for the first time( Kit Log Pro) and it say's
185 hrs. on each plane (370 total)
Tails complete, Wing's complete, Fuselage's- all interior parts complete, starting wiring this week.
 
dan said:
You won't see me build a Super 8 -- for similar reasons why you won't see me own a Rocket. Cost per mile and cost per hour is very high on my list of priorities. I have yet to fly alongside ANY RV that can beat my RV-7 economy-wise (granted, I haven't flown alongside Tracy or Dave). The RV-8 will be the same or better (slipperier airframe).
Click to expand...

We'll I'd like to take that challenge someday.
 
f1rocket said:
We'll I'd like to take that challenge someday.
Click to expand...
Cool! Going to Airventure this year? I'd say our first leg home we could just fly together and compare bills at the first fuel stop, but I think you'd be heading east & I'm heading west...
 
We had two F1s flying beside a RV7 yesterday. We were both using 1 to 1.5 gallons per hour less at the same speed than the RV7. He was running 23 squared and I was running 2200rpm and 18 inches. He has a I0-360 180hp and a constant speed prop.
The only Rv that I flown beside that used less fuel was a 150hp RV6. On 900nm trip I used three gallons more. The only reason I used more fuel was that I got bored and sped up to get fueled at the next stop before he landed.
 
Well I burn 1 to 1.5 gph less than 180hp IO-360 RVs, so it oughtta be a close one! :)
 
The caveat to the comparison run is that the RV needs to be running about 23 square or above. Obviously, we cannot lean out a IO-540 down at the lower RPM range of a O-360 when throttled way back.

But above 23 square, I think we can match or beat you. Now, if you add altitude into the equation, prepare to be really surprised because that's where the performance and economy gets even better!
 
Sure we can but there's a lower limit. And since we're feed six cylinders and you're feeding four, there's no way I can get a 2 GPH flow and stay in the air.

However, the point remains at what are usually cruise settings.
 
dan said:
Web site for the -8? No way. When I started my -7 there weren't many comprehensive web logs for the -7. Now they're a dime a dozen! And they all look the same. Same with the -8. Not gonna reinvent that wheel. I'm stealing everybody else's ideas at this point, so why bother putting up some extensive web site about that?! Got better things to do...like fly this sweet little RV-7...
Click to expand...

Well, Dan, I can honestly say I would not be building today if you hadn't made it look so satisfying and transparent!

Thanks (again!)
Martin
 
f1rocket said:
Sure we can but there's a lower limit. And since we're feed six cylinders and you're feeding four, there's no way I can get a 2 GPH flow and stay in the air.

However, the point remains at what are usually cruise settings.
Click to expand...
Ok, well since we probably won't get to fly alongside each other for a while, here's some data from my end from a recent 3000+nm round trip: http://www.rvproject.com/2007-05-OSH.xls

To sum it up, average MPG was 22.7 nmpg or 26.1 mpg.

Maybe if you have data on your end you can post it for comparison. :D
 
mgomez said:
Well, Dan, I can honestly say I would not be building today if you hadn't made it look so satisfying and transparent!

Thanks (again!)
Martin
Click to expand...
Ditto for me. It was fun to sit down and see what you'd done that day, and exciting to see it all come together over all that time, yet now it seems like no time at all!
It was still a few years before I started, but without your website, I might not have started (if ever) until I retired! I now believe the sooner the better...
 
dan said:
To sum it up, average MPG was 22.7 nmpg or 26.1 mpg.

Maybe if you have data on your end you can post it for comparison. :D
Click to expand...
That's pretty good. I generally average about 21.6 nmpg or 24.9 mpg in my best cruise configuration. However, you forgot to mention that I'll get there faster than you! ;)
 
Unpainted versus painted

I agree that leaving the painting to the next owner has merits. I have seen some paint jobs that are automatic turn-offs. Just price it accordingly (lower than if painted) and it should sell.
 
f1rocket said:
That's pretty good. I generally average about 21.6 nmpg or 24.9 mpg in my best cruise configuration. However, you forgot to mention that I'll get there faster than you! ;)
Click to expand...
Ok, you win, you win, I give, I give. You are much cooler.
 
Since this is a 360 vs. 540 thread, let me point some things out for your consumption.

1. I can buy six new cylinders for a 540 for about $1K less than what it would cost to buy four new angle-valve cylinders.
2. Heck of a lot smoother. Sounds better.
3. You have an overbuilt and underworked engine with the 540 running at 50% power most of the time. Think what that will do long term to your TBO.
4. Fuel consumption at typical RV speeds with a 540 is very close to a 360.
5. Good cores are still available on the used market.

If handling qualities are important to you (they are to me), changing the aileron and elevator bellcrank ratios will transform a RV-7 or -8 into handling like a -3 or -4. Its been done with success. With those mods a RV-8 with a 540 can be improved upon in handling. A friend of mine just started flying his new RV-3B and it handled like a truck until he made the aileron bellcrank ratio the same as the ratio of the earlier RV's. Van's response to this mod was "well, nobody's complaining but let us know how it turns out." I can loop and roll a friends F1 with two fingers on the stick with these mods. What I am saying here is that the argument about a 540 making the airplane feel heavy is not a valid one. A well built Super-8 or Rocket with large trailing edge radii and/or bellcrank mods will handle just like they ought to IMO.

Of course, Van's poo-poo's the 540's for obvious reasons but maybe they should get with the program and realize that HP is what many customers want. Its been well-proven that economy and gobs of HP can be had at the same and not be mutually exclusive.

Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
 
dan said:
Ok, you win, you win, I give, I give. You are much cooler.
Click to expand...
And here I thought we were having a good conversation and you go and get mad. I never said I was "cooler" than you. You made the point that the reason you weren't building a Rocket is because you care about effeciency and economy.

I apologize if my facts about the Rocket don't match up with your preconceived notions. My bad I guess.
 
Randy & Bob, even if you are correct about all of those claims (and I'm sure you are), I'm definitely not building a Rocket (HR* or F*). I'm building an RV-8. Done deal. And I'm definitely not gonna put a 540 on the RV-8. So there's really no point in trying to convince me to do it! :rolleyes:

I'm sure your cost-to-build and hourly operating costs (including insurance) are much lower than mine, so you guys definitely take the cake there.
 
dan said:
Randy & Bob, even if you are correct about all of those claims (and I'm sure you are), I'm definitely not building a Rocket (HR* or F*). I'm building an RV-8. Done deal. And I'm definitely not gonna put a 540 on the RV-8. So there's really no point in trying to convince me to do it! :rolleyes:

I'm sure your cost-to-build and hourly operating costs (including insurance) are much lower than mine, so you guys definitely take the cake there.
Click to expand...
Yeah, angle cylinder costs are astronomical, and will remain so until Superior comes out with their angle valve head. At which time Lycoming will have to dump their price to stay competitive. Still overall cost of a IO-540 intially is 5000 greater, plus most Rocket people opt for the MT (ew) prop. Then there is the kit which is 13K more initially (or roll your own HRII or Super7/8, which is more man-hours).

I don't think you can actually make a case that a Rocket can be as economical as an RV can be. It just isn't logical. If I spend 10K less on a self-overhauled O-320 than Dan does on his IO-360, can he legitimately argue that he'll save 10K worth of fuel over the life of the engine? Maybe... but it's really close.

I won't say that my next airplane won't be a Rocket, but I can say that my next airplane project WON'T be trying to be economical. Does John Harmon still sell parts for the HR I? :D
 
dan said:
I'm sure your cost-to-build and hourly operating costs (including insurance) are much lower than mine, so you guys definitely take the cake there.
Click to expand...

Dan,
I don't understand. Are you saying it would be CHEAPER to operate a Rocket as compared to an RV, AND the insurance would be cheaper???? Excuse me if you were being smart, because if so, it's subtle enough that I didn't catch on. :rolleyes: :p
 
I think what Randy is saying is that his fuel economy is a little less than what Dan reports but he is cruising faster when he is getting those numbers.

I don't think anyone is criticizing your decision Dan but we are questioning your logic. I can tell you I've flown on many, many X/C trips with Randy and two other Rockets. We always have a contest to see who fills up the least at fuel stops and I can tell you that my carb'ed 180hp RV-6 is +-2gal. of what a Rocket will burn. Its pretty dang close every time. Not trying to convince you one way or another, but as far as fuel consumption goes a Rocket won't use more fuel unless you keep the levers forward all of the time. And its nice to have that option available to you if you don't mind the burn rate.

In fact on the way home from SNF I had to stop twice to get gas (headwinds), but the Rockets had 20 gallons to spare, and made it home with one stop. So I had to stop at an airport where gas was not cheap while my Rocket buddies kept on going (we were close to home anyway.) The difference here is 52 gals. vs. 38. In that case the Rockets won the economy contest hands down.

Insurance, yes indeed insurance is a problem but I don't carry hull coverage so I am not worried about that aspect. NIM and liability is all I carry on the RV and it won't be any different on the F1.

Some of the numbers I will rattle off don't apply anymore, but here is what I paid for the major components of my F1 kit:

Kit - $29K
Zero timed 540 - $7K (yes that's right, $7K)
Prop - $1800 (500 hours SMOH).

Once upon a time not long ago 540's were had for much less than anything else.

Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
 
Dan - where are you going to put your cookies and soda in an 8 Dude ?

No storage, no huge area behind to put.................stuff !

I totally agree about the side by side thing though - I am an Aeronca/Bellanca fan so tandem is cool - talk through the intercom and look outside, the view is there !

We came so close to building an 8 but the accessible storage of the 7 won the day, however, when we have built this one, our next one will be an 8 :D
 
Dan,

Congrats on your new project. I (along with probably everyone else in this site) have cheated off your site while building my plane. You've been an inspiration. I took your input on your decision to build a 7 very seriously while chosing my RV. All your points were great and made a great deal of sense. Yet I ended up opting for an 8A (yeah, yeah , nosedragger, whatever) because of exactly the same reasons you're now building an 8.

Anyway, I'm rambling. All I really want to say is welcome to the fold. I'm sure it will be a great airplane. At my pace we'll probably get in the air around the same time.

Jorge

PS: Once while watching the planes come and go from the platform at LVK, I saw this sexy unpainted taildragger pull up to the pump and the canopy went up and forward. At the time I had little clue of what an RV was, much less who you were. After reading (and cheating off) your site all this time, I'm convinced that was you. Remember this post when a silver and yellow nosedraggin' 8 pulls up to yours at a flyin' and I say "hi, remember me".
 
when...............

Think we should start a new poll... when is first flight of Dan's RV-8?

Will he put it together really quickly because he's got the skills or will he be delayed by flying the -7 so much?

Wifey wants me to start a -10 but my heart says -8... keep the -7A and then we'd have the 4 seats!
 
dan said:
I'm sure your cost-to-build and hourly operating costs (including insurance) are much lower than mine, so you guys definitely take the cake there.
Click to expand...

Certainly my costs per minute are much higher. Cause I spend less time getting from A to B. :D

But my operating costs per mile are the same. Sure I squeeze out a gallon or 2 on my fellow 4 bangers every time. But that pales in comparison to all the other costs. My ins on the S8 is the same as a 4 banger. They dont seem to care about the HP. Its still an 8 in their mind with a reliable lycoming on the front. I paid ~3k less on my 6 banger than a comparible 4 banger so thats a wash too. Costs to build and fly are the same in the end.

Great to hear your working on a tandem. Ill see you next week at the clinic and let you have a nuther shot at the Super 8. You had a pretty big grin on the last hop. You have plenty of time to decide what engine goes in. Perhaps I cant tempt you once again :p

See you next week.
 
Kahuna said:
Great to hear your working on a tandem. Ill see you next week at the clinic and let you have a nuther shot at the Super 8. You had a pretty big grin on the last hop. You have plenty of time to decide what engine goes in. Perhaps I cant tempt you once again :p

See you next week.
Click to expand...
Dang man...you are way too generous. Last time, to be honest, I felt a little guilty afterward. Flying another guy's airplane is kinda like taking the guy's wife out on a date or something. Just doesn't feel right! :eek:

My thing with the Super 8 is... a. I want a relatively light airplane. b. I won't build in add'l fuel capacity in wings with pre-punched spars.

See you at Brownwood!
 
... isn't it possible to order the spars... pre-pre-punched? In other words, order blanks from Van's? Worth a shot if you want to add fuel capacity. I plan on that on my second build, unless I build a rocket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top