Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Rocket vs RV 8 short field landings
- Thread starter redhawk
- Start date
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Never measured it, but a light Rocket should do as well as a heavy -8. In any case a Rocket will land shorter than just about any other 250 MPH homebuilt yet conceived.
I have flown Mike's RV8 and Rocket from the front seat out of my airport and there is not really any practical difference in approach and landing speeds. Mike makes the first turn-off at my airport about 50% of the time in either aircraft and I am sure could do it 100% of the time if desired and willing to use a little brake (that is 1200ft or so). I end up making the first turn off about 25% of the time with my RV6 with an angle valve engine (a little nose heavy), I usually stay off the brakes and roll to 2500 ft turn off. I fly mine into a 2400 foot paved strip often and can stop by mid field easily when solo with some braking. You are not going to do a lot better than Rocket for short field performance in an 190-210kt cruise airplane. The Wittman style gear needs a somewhat smooth runway, but not much length.
Light Rocket
I have owned both an RV-4 and a Harmon Rocket. The 4 was a fixed pitch 180 horse, and the Harmon has constant speed 180. The Harmon is about 100lbs heavier, has a smaller wing, but I can consistently land it shorter than I could land the-4.
2 reasons for this.
1. The titanium gear. It has exceptional damping with almost no rebound. So the rocket sticks to the ground when it gets there, allowing me to get on the brakes sooner.
2. The higher wing loading of the smaller wing. It has no float and it is more consistent at slow speed. It is just easier to hit my spot in the rocket.
I have owned both an RV-4 and a Harmon Rocket. The 4 was a fixed pitch 180 horse, and the Harmon has constant speed 180. The Harmon is about 100lbs heavier, has a smaller wing, but I can consistently land it shorter than I could land the-4.
2 reasons for this.
1. The titanium gear. It has exceptional damping with almost no rebound. So the rocket sticks to the ground when it gets there, allowing me to get on the brakes sooner.
2. The higher wing loading of the smaller wing. It has no float and it is more consistent at slow speed. It is just easier to hit my spot in the rocket.
Robertcropdust
Well Known Member
Rocket vs rv8
I have experience with both birds, I flew out of a 1,500 usable narrow grass strip and always felt more comfortable in the hr2 over my rv8. The rocket in my opinion was always easier to hit my landing spot with not much floating. The 8 did a great job but I never felt the degree of accuracy as with the rocket. I think they are both about the same depending on the pilot. I?m finishing up my F1 and can?t wait to try it out. I went from a HR2 to a rv8 200hp fastback and I?m going back to a ROCKET!!!
I have experience with both birds, I flew out of a 1,500 usable narrow grass strip and always felt more comfortable in the hr2 over my rv8. The rocket in my opinion was always easier to hit my landing spot with not much floating. The 8 did a great job but I never felt the degree of accuracy as with the rocket. I think they are both about the same depending on the pilot. I?m finishing up my F1 and can?t wait to try it out. I went from a HR2 to a rv8 200hp fastback and I?m going back to a ROCKET!!!
Differences?
I am looking at all three of those options. What do you see as the strengths and shortcomings of each? Information from a single source on all three would be very valuable. Interesting that you had the fastback 8 as well since that was the version I was considering.
I am looking at all three of those options. What do you see as the strengths and shortcomings of each? Information from a single source on all three would be very valuable. Interesting that you had the fastback 8 as well since that was the version I was considering.
ColoRv
Well Known Member
The difference in wing loading on the rocket is a serious advantage in my eyes. It cuts through chop without abusing the pilot like my -8 can. I far prefer the way the rocket flies, but the insurance cost is prohibitive. My rocket buddy who has 5 times my hours pays triple what my -8 costs per year. It?s ludicrous.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
What is your mission? What might be a strength for one person might be a weakness for another.
To me the biggest strength of the Rocket over the -8 is performance: The Rocket driver can always pull the throttle back and hang with his RV buddies, but there is not enough throttle in any 4 banger RV to hang with a Rocket.
Second to perfomance (for me) is cockpit comfort. This is highly dependent on the individual, but for me, the Rocket is worlds better than the -8.
For many, the fore/aft baggage of the -8 is an advantage over the Rocket and generally I'd agree. But again, its mission dependent. My wife is a tiny little thing and when we travel I can get both of us, a full tank of fuel, and 100 pounds of bags in back - yet still fall in CG. The -8 uses less brainpower to load, but that's not a product differentiator for me.
To me the biggest strength of the Rocket over the -8 is performance: The Rocket driver can always pull the throttle back and hang with his RV buddies, but there is not enough throttle in any 4 banger RV to hang with a Rocket.
Second to perfomance (for me) is cockpit comfort. This is highly dependent on the individual, but for me, the Rocket is worlds better than the -8.
For many, the fore/aft baggage of the -8 is an advantage over the Rocket and generally I'd agree. But again, its mission dependent. My wife is a tiny little thing and when we travel I can get both of us, a full tank of fuel, and 100 pounds of bags in back - yet still fall in CG. The -8 uses less brainpower to load, but that's not a product differentiator for me.
Robertcropdust
Well Known Member
Rocket
My insurance was not that bad on my rocket.
Rv8 @ 110k Hull was around 1600.00
Hr2 @ 120k Hull was around 2100.00
I?m sure my F1 will be a bit more due to higher hull value. I do have a lot of TW time not sure how far that goes?
I never liked the gear towers and landing gear design on the rv8. Checking the torque on the gear bolts was a pain!! If a person could use the rv8a fuselage with the f4/rocket style engine mount and titanium gear legs that would help a lot. My fuel bill was about 10% higher on the rocket but that was my fault, it?s hard to pull that power back when your climbing out like a f16 lol. I also prefer the cg range on the rocket over the 8. I?ve never had a tail heavy issue with a full size adult and a few bags in the back.
My insurance was not that bad on my rocket.
Rv8 @ 110k Hull was around 1600.00
Hr2 @ 120k Hull was around 2100.00
I?m sure my F1 will be a bit more due to higher hull value. I do have a lot of TW time not sure how far that goes?
I never liked the gear towers and landing gear design on the rv8. Checking the torque on the gear bolts was a pain!! If a person could use the rv8a fuselage with the f4/rocket style engine mount and titanium gear legs that would help a lot. My fuel bill was about 10% higher on the rocket but that was my fault, it?s hard to pull that power back when your climbing out like a f16 lol. I also prefer the cg range on the rocket over the 8. I?ve never had a tail heavy issue with a full size adult and a few bags in the back.
logansc
Well Known Member
There might have been another question profitably asked here: Which one gets off the ground first? There is also the issue of which clears a 50' obstacle first and which has the best rate and angle of climb? It's not just about how short you can get it in. You can be sure that if you can get a Rocket into a field, you can get it out with no trouble.
Just sayin'...
Lee...
Just sayin'...
Lee...
smokyray
Well Known Member
The Long and Short of it...
RH,
Short answer, YES.
For Five years I operated my HR2 out of a 2200' very soft, semi-rough turf strip with 50' obstacles at each end near my home. One of my neighbors kindly allowed me to fly his RV8 on numerous occasions which allowed me to compare the two close-up.
My HR2 sported 380X150X5 tires, Flyboy accessories tail wheel and a basic AOA system, IO-540C4B5 with Hartzell "Paddle", Electronic Ignition and GAMI injectors, RV4 wings and tail. My Neighbors RV8 was a stock QB, albeit very light considering the British Bulldog Trainer FWF AEIO-360A1B6 with MT 3 Blade Aerobatic CS prop.
Key to this discussion was the AOA system. It allowed me to max perform the aircraft approach and landing just above stall speed safely, every time. AOA approaches are exemplified by power controlling sink rate and pitch controlling aim-point/airspeed.
With practice in the HR2 I could routinely land and stop in 700 feet on turf with light braking. "Green Dot" approach speeds varied from 58-64 KIAS, a speed arguably not trod by many HR2 owners.
In comparison, the RV8 has better forward visibility on approach but lacking the AOA system I referenced 65 KIAS. This speed established after configured slow flight practice with full flaps. The RV8 sitting on it's gear has a lower AOA than the HR2 and a max performance approach will land tail first, very similar to my short gear RV4. Another thing I noticed was a very slight burble/vibration through the stick below 70 KIAS on final approach.
Overall, both are very nice Sport Aircraft, but I prefer the HR2 for numerous reasons. However, to avoid thread robbery and further incessant babbling, I will refrain...
Long answer to a short question on short landings...
V/R
Smokey
RH,
Short answer, YES.
For Five years I operated my HR2 out of a 2200' very soft, semi-rough turf strip with 50' obstacles at each end near my home. One of my neighbors kindly allowed me to fly his RV8 on numerous occasions which allowed me to compare the two close-up.
My HR2 sported 380X150X5 tires, Flyboy accessories tail wheel and a basic AOA system, IO-540C4B5 with Hartzell "Paddle", Electronic Ignition and GAMI injectors, RV4 wings and tail. My Neighbors RV8 was a stock QB, albeit very light considering the British Bulldog Trainer FWF AEIO-360A1B6 with MT 3 Blade Aerobatic CS prop.
Key to this discussion was the AOA system. It allowed me to max perform the aircraft approach and landing just above stall speed safely, every time. AOA approaches are exemplified by power controlling sink rate and pitch controlling aim-point/airspeed.
With practice in the HR2 I could routinely land and stop in 700 feet on turf with light braking. "Green Dot" approach speeds varied from 58-64 KIAS, a speed arguably not trod by many HR2 owners.
In comparison, the RV8 has better forward visibility on approach but lacking the AOA system I referenced 65 KIAS. This speed established after configured slow flight practice with full flaps. The RV8 sitting on it's gear has a lower AOA than the HR2 and a max performance approach will land tail first, very similar to my short gear RV4. Another thing I noticed was a very slight burble/vibration through the stick below 70 KIAS on final approach.
Overall, both are very nice Sport Aircraft, but I prefer the HR2 for numerous reasons. However, to avoid thread robbery and further incessant babbling, I will refrain...
Long answer to a short question on short landings...
V/R
Smokey
Last edited:
