What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-8 Owners Be Proud!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ironflight

Ironflight

VAF Moderator / Line Boy
Mentor
I don;’t know how many folks watched the EAA webinar with Van on Tuesday night, talking about the history of RV’s, but there was an interesting moment in the Q&A (I had dropped off for another engagement by then, but I was watching the replay yesterday). Van was asked “What’s your favorite of all the RV’S?” His initial response was what you’d expect…..”that’s like askign a parent who’s you favorite child!!!”

Then he thought about it and said “another way to look at it is if you could only have ONE RV, which would it be?”

His answer? The RV-8!!

Fight’s on……. 😉
 
If I had it to do over, I might get an -8 instead of the -7 I have. I suspect there are more 7 owners secretly desiring 8’s than the other way around.

Passengers might disagree!
 
I had the good fortune to have a Rocket AND an -8 for several years and while the -8 was severely neglected in favor of the Rocket during that time (eventually you will know this, Paul), if there was some “end of times” scenario that drive us all to ONLY ONE aircraft for all eternity, I have to admit the -8 is a strong contender…. Just a great all around airplane.

Fortunately, we are NOT restricted to just one airplane….
 
I had almost this exact conversation with him at Oshkosh 2019. It was the 40th Anniversary of the RV-4. I explained that I bought my -4 as a flying airplane 7 years and 900 hours ago and it's flying characteristics are wonderful. I mentioned to him that I want to support the company and buy a kit someday and the -8 seemed like the logical choice but I had heard it was "heavier" on the controls and not quite as pure. I shared my fear of spending years of my life and all the dollars involved to end up with an airplane I wouldn't enjoy as much as my -4. I understand that feel is sometimes subjective and any control feel might be micro-percentages to the most attune aviator.

He paused for a moment and said this... "If the -3 is a 10/10... The -4 is a 9.5/10. And the -8 is a 9/10."

So that sealed it for me. I have since then had the opportunity to fly an -8. It flew wonderful, just like all the other RV Aircraft. So you might be more useful, be able to carry more stuff and in more comfort in your -8's, but Van agrees with me that the -4 flies better :)

END[friendly banter]
 
Yeah Paul...but parents always love the not so pretty, not so fast kid too. Just sayin'! :ROFLMAO:

Chaff, flares, out of burner, turning to re-engage!

Cheers,
Bob
 
Jvon811 said:
I had almost this exact conversation with him at Oshkosh 2019. It was the 40th Anniversary of the RV-4. I explained that I bought my -4 as a flying airplane 7 years and 900 hours ago and it's flying characteristics are wonderful. I mentioned to him that I want to support the company and buy a kit someday and the -8 seemed like the logical choice but I had heard it was "heavier" on the controls and not quite as pure. I shared my fear of spending years of my life and all the dollars involved to end up with an airplane I wouldn't enjoy as much as my -4. I understand that feel is sometimes subjective and any control feel might be micro-percentages to the most attune aviator.

He paused for a moment and said this... "If the -3 is a 10/10... The -4 is a 9.5/10. And the -8 is a 9/10."

So that sealed it for me. I have since then had the opportunity to fly an -8. It flew wonderful, just like all the other RV Aircraft. So you might be more useful, be able to carry more stuff and in more comfort in your -8's, but Van agrees with me that the -4 flies better :)

END[friendly banter]
Click to expand...
Agreed.. very similar to my experience meeting Van while the public was ogling over the -15. In my opinion, the -3 flies the best, followed closely by the -4. The -4 has so much more utility over the -3 with the ability to carry another person or you can strap a second bag on the rear seat.. the -8 just flies like a truck compared to the -4. Everything about the -8 is a little off.. the throttle quadrant is at an awkward place behind a bulkhead, the pedals are so close together, unlike the -4 (and the Rocket) where you sit wide like straddling a Harley. With the -8, you are sitting on top of the plane, where the -4, you sit IN the plane, wearing it. The only benefit that the -8 has is the forward baggage compartment. Don’t get me wrong, I like the -8, but I love the -4!
 
Not a fan of -8. After you have flown -4 or 6, the -8 flies quite a bit differently. Buffeting issues with gear/wing intersection to the tail on landings. More complex to build with gear towers and restrictive in the front seat with gear towers. Killed a couple of people early on with the wings coming off due to redesigning the wing spar (which didn't cut down on weight or parts).
I think the RV-6 is the best all around design for form/function. speed, ease of building, performance...etc. Looks better too if you paint it right. I know several RV-6's that have 180 hp, that spank 200hp RV-8's all day long in cruise and all out speed.

Just my $.02.
 
Aden Rich said:
Not a fan of -8. After you have flown -4 or 6, the -8 flies quite a bit differently. Killed a couple of people early on with the wings coming off due to redesigning the wing spar (which didn't cut down on weight or parts).
Click to expand...
Please get your facts straight if you are going to bash the RV-8 design! Sheesh!

The RV-8 demonstrator came apart in flight due to a static overload above the Ultimate design load of the airplane. The RV-8 spar/wing was not changed at all due to the in-flight breakup of the factory demonstrator (N58RV). After the accident Van hired outside loads, stress, structures, and flutter consultants who thoroughly evaluated the design. In addition, Van's purchased a set of wings from a builder who was selling his partially completed kit. Those representative builder-built wings were then static load tested to 9 g's with no failure. This was the second static load test of the RV-8 wings, the first was the testing Van's did originally for the design. No design or manufacturing fault was found, and no changes were made to the RV-8 wing at that time. Van actually wrote all this up in detail and here is the link to the article:


From the article:

i-gXcrjpm-M.png
Later however, the RV-8 wings were modified (the so-called "Dash One" wings) for commonality with the RV-7 wings (Remember, the RV-7 came out several years after the RV-8) . This did lead to a 50 lb increase in the Aerobatic Gross Weight of the RV-8s with the "Dash One" wings (from 1550 pounds to 1600 pounds), but no increase in the recommended Gross Weight of 1800 pounds. Note that at the recommended Gross Weight of 1800 pounds, the RV-8 (and RV-7) is stressed for the Utility Category g-limits of +4.4g/-2.2g.

Aden Rich said:
Buffeting issues with gear/wing intersection to the tail on landings. More complex to build with gear towers and restrictive in the front seat with gear towers.
Click to expand...
The adverse interaction of the vortices of the wing/fuselage intersection and the gear/fuselage intersection at high AoA's can be easily tamed by fuselage strakes. Both my previous RV-8 and my current RV-8 have those and there is NO buffet on landings (including 3-pointers).

The strakes are shown in the pics below. Note that the upper gear leg fairings are different between the two airplanes. Their design makes a difference in the strength and interaction of the two vortices coming from the wing/fuselage intersection and the gear/fuselage intersection. Those vortices affect the HStab and elevator effectiveness in the flare, and tail shake (pre-stall buffet) due to flow separation at high AoA's. The strakes help tame the two vortices and alleviate and delay their adverse effects. A very good design of the upper gear leg fairings could, and do, provide the same benefits that the strakes provide.

Previous RV-8 with Twin Cessna nacelle strakes:

i-pkZfdHJ-L.jpg


Current RV-8 with custom carbon fiber strakes:

i-xPnfpm7-L.png
 
Last edited:
RV8JD said:
The adverse interaction of the vortices of the wing/fuselage intersection and the gear/fuselage intersection at high AoA's can be easily tamed by fuselage strakes. Both my previous RV-8 and my current RV-8 has those and there is NO buffet on landings.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wonder where people got this old wives tale from. The only buffet I feel is from the impending nose drop at altitude during my phase 1 testing, just like all the airplanes I flew before. At landing, everything was smooth because even at 3-point attitude, it wasn't stalling yet. Two other RV8 that were finished before mine didn't have anything strange buffeting either.
 
PhatRV said:
Yeah, I wonder where people got this old wives tale from. The only buffet I feel is from the impending nose drop at altitude during my phase 1 testing, just like all the airplanes I flew before. At landing, everything was smooth because even at 3-point attitude, it wasn't stalling yet. Two other RV8 that were finished before mine didn't have anything strange buffeting either.
Click to expand...
My experience as well. Obviously every airplane is custom built, and CG issues will change the handling characteristics significantly. But my RV-8 flies beautifully and has significantly more utility than a 3 or 4. I get no buffet in the flare in either wheel or three point landings.
 
Never met an RV I didn’t like flying! Well, except maybe the RV1. I think I just wanted to move it on and not be the guy that wrecked the museum piece! Could have been the bent gear?
Anyway, the 8 is great. Except for one small styling subtlety. It’s subtle, but I wish they didn’t compromise on the gear position in the TW configuration. Perhaps for cg reasons but the rest of the TW fleet, gear mounted as part of the engine mount, just looks right. The 8’s gear are a bit far back for my taste, but it doesn’t affect landing qualities and proper execution of paint makes it barely noticeable.
So many positives, just one little gripe, and it’s subjective.
Contrary to some previous posts, my best buddies 8 with a WW CS and 200HP was way more efficient than my 180HP 6 with the Hartzell BA. Both injected, std mags. We flew many hours together and he could stretch a leg out way farther with the efficiency and more fuel onboard.
The 8 would be my second choice only because I don’t have that choice. Wife won’t ride in back.
 
Just a note as I look down on the furball from overhead….he didn’t say that the -8 was the best handling of all the RV’s, he essentially that it was the one he would choose if he could only chose one. Total Performance remember…..

Best handling? I am not the only one who knows that its the -3……
 
Ironflight said:
I don;’t know how many folks watched the EAA webinar with Van on Tuesday night, talking about the history of RV’s, but there was an interesting moment in the Q&A (I had dropped off for another engagement by then, but I was watching the replay yesterday). Van was asked “What’s your favorite of all the RV’S?” His initial response was what you’d expect…..”that’s like askign a parent who’s you favorite child!!!”

Then he thought about it and said “another way to look at it is if you could only have ONE RV, which would it be?”

His answer? The RV-8!!

Fight’s on……. 😉
Click to expand...
It was 2006 or 2007 at Oshkosh, I don't quite recall the year, but I was standing in front of my -8 talking to a young couple who were trying to decide whether to build a -6 or an -8. I was of course evangelizing about the -8. Van happened to walk by and was listening. He introduced himself to the couple, didn't opine on the best model but then turned to me and said "Oh, you -8 people" with a twinkle in his eye and a smile and walked on. Yeah, he likes the -8 best.
 
chrispratt said:
Van happened to walk by and was listening. He introduced himself to the couple, didn't opine on the best model but then turned to me and said "Oh, you -8 people" with a twinkle in his eye and a smile and walked on. Yeah, he likes the -8 best.
Click to expand...
Not true! I saw him at an Applebees in Walla Walla in 2007 and he saw my RV hat. There were a bunch of loud guys with RV-8 T-shirts at the bar drinking Dollaritas and arguing about wheel landings vs. three-pointers. With a twinkle in his eye and a smile Van made a "shhh" gesture and held up NINE FINGERS and then he MADE AN A WITH HIS ARMS LIKE IN THE VILLAGE PEOPLE YMCA DANCE.

So there's no doubt he likes the -9A best.
 
JonJay said:
Never met an RV I didn’t like flying! Well, except maybe the RV1. I think I just wanted to move it on and not be the guy that wrecked the museum piece!
Click to expand...
😳
JonJay said:
The 8 is great. Except for one small styling subtlety. It’s subtle, but I wish they didn’t compromise on the gear position in the TW configuration. Perhaps for cg reasons but the rest of the TW fleet, gear mounted as part of the engine mount, just looks right. The 8’s gear are a bit far back for my taste, but it doesn’t affect landing qualities and proper execution of paint makes it barely noticeable.
Click to expand...
I really like the looks of the engine-mounted gear as well. I agree that the -8 just looks too.......straight......or something. The raked-back gear on the -3,-4,-6,-7 just says let's GO!!
 
I don’t think there is much argument. Any RV you’re lucky enough to fly is your favorite. If your like Paul, and have several, that becomes a huge problem. Poor Paul.
 
DanH said:
...says the guy who has spent a small fortune trying to catch the 8's...or at least not be a 7 ;)
Click to expand...
Catch the 8s? Um...as Elmer would say...shhhh, be vewy, vewy qwiet, I am hunting Wockets ;). (and now the Wockets are hunting me ;)). The only 8s that were temporarily faster, could only do it for a lap or two...or until a cylinder or two came apart. I finished on Sunday in every airplane I qualified in...and never behind an 8. But I digress...the chain pull is appreciated and is funny! I will say you have a different definition of small fortune than I do :ROFLMAO:...and I wish my plane was a purty as yours!

Cheers,
Bob
 
I have hundreds of PIC hours in all the RV models except the RV-4. My first RV was an RV-3 I built in the late '80's. I have owned a -3, -6, -7 and an -8. All had their strong points. But IMHO, the best flying of them all was the RV-3. Way too much fun.
 
I have a large buddy.. he’s over 6 foot and claims to be 235 lbs, but I bet he’s 245.. I’ve had him in my -4 back seat several times. Even on a three hour cross country flight to Idaho and back.. tight, sure, but he fit. Tried to take him in the back of an -8 once.. couldn’t even get close to fitting! Even tried talking off his shoes and moving the seatbelt latch off to one side.. the -8 seems tighter than the -4?
 
Always good to get a thread going that does not have a right answer. Thanks Paul.
 
Ironflight said:
Just a note as I look down on the furball from overhead….he didn’t say that the -8 was the best handling of all the RV’s, he essentially that it was the one he would choose if he could only chose one. Total Performance remember…..

Best handling? I am not the only one who knows that its the -3……
Click to expand...
Looking down on the furball...from overhead...after stirring the pot! I'll bet you are having fun over your morning Cup o Joe, looking out at the Pine Nuts!

But have we forgotten the RV-1 Paul?! What made that so fun to fly was everyone chasing it and following it around. And they threw a party wherever it landed! It really was a blast to fly...climbed like crazy with that prop you guys put on it. No one could keep up in the climb, but everyone caught up in cruise. I did lose the checklist once, when I tucked it in the wood longeron before takeoff...and during climb the fabric expanded aerodynamically...and the checklist ended up down in the belly! Really fun plane...though flying a museum piece has a certain responsibility that may have kept the fun in the "careful" category. ;)

Dan Benua's 3 was indeed incredible to fly...can I put a 390 on a 3 and race it...purty please. :devilish:

The 1, 3, and 4 have seemed to have be the most responsive...flick of the wrist fun. The 6 and 7 are close, and the SBS seating is a different kinda fun, especially with kiddos or grand-kiddos on board...you get to see that little RV grin! The 8, like the 3 and 4 is a little P-51, just feels a bit more solid, but still lighter than my Frankenstein, which flies like a 14 (solid and substantial) that can almost go straight up. The 9 feels like a glider in the pattern...its super stable and nice...but I often want to pull the throttle back out of the panel when I turn final, on those patterns where I turn where I would in my plane. The 10 is a man-cave (or she-shed)...and outperforms so many $750K planes out there...such a great cruiser! I still need to try out an 8A, a 12, and a 14(non-A).

No bad choices in the RV line, that is for sure. As the fella that sold my RV to me said...there isn't another airplane out there that can do as many different things as well as an RV can. Wait til the 15 comes out, and start this thread again. It'll be filled with photos from the back country, with the caption, "oh yeah, betcha can't land here". ;)

Cheers,
Bob
 
rvmills said:
Catch the 8s? Um...as Elmer would say...shhhh, be vewy, vewy qwiet, I am hunting Wockets ;). (and now the Wockets are hunting me ;)). The only 8s that were temporarily faster, could only do it for a lap or two...or until a cylinder or two came apart. I finished on Sunday in every airplane I qualified in...and never behind an 8. But I digress...the chain pull is appreciated and is funny! I will say you have a different definition of small fortune than I do :ROFLMAO:...and I wish my plane was a purty as yours!

Cheers,
Bob
Click to expand...
Definitely rattling your chain. You now have the coolest 7 on the planet, hands down, no contest.
Of course when Steve gets those wings on his new 8....
 
bmellis11 said:
You can fit a lot of passengers into 737, but I bet most of us would rather fly an F-18. ;)

Of course everyone has a different mission.
Click to expand...
Your last statement illustrates my point perfectly:

Everyone has a different mission, therefore, there cannot be "one" perfect airplane.
 
Uhmmm, to my knowledge the only RV Van built himself to keep for himself was a -10. I'm not sayin'...I'm just sayin'
 
DanH said:
Definitely rattling your chain. You now have the coolest 7 on the planet, hands down, no contest.
Of course when Steve gets those wings on his new 8....
Click to expand...
6, 7; 220, 221...whatever it takes :ROFLMAO:

And yes, Steve's 8, built from he ground up for the new wings, will be spectacular! He and I are juggling similar balls...Steve, a Hatz project and the SuperCarbon8, and me, the Bücker (now going back together with all new wiring, a new panel with radios, new mags, and all new hoses from Tom Swearengen) and the SuperCarbon6. #FirstWorldProblems ;)

Cheers,
Bob
 
I currently own a -3, have flown a -4, transitioned in the -6, and have flown the -8. For me the -3 wins out over all with the possible exception of the -4, of which I am currently building. Everyone's mission is different, so build or buy the plane that you want, not what everyone says is the best. (the -3) :) IMHO
 
Taltruda said:
I have a large buddy.. he’s over 6 foot and claims to be 235 lbs, but I bet he’s 245.. I’ve had him in my -4 back seat several times. Even on a three hour cross country flight to Idaho and back.. tight, sure, but he fit. Tried to take him in the back of an -8 once.. couldn’t even get close to fitting! Even tried talking off his shoes and moving the seatbelt latch off to one side.. the -8 seems tighter than the -4?
Click to expand...
Wow! I had a stated 195 but probably 200+ in the back seat of SuzieQ. He fit well and had no complaints. SuzieQ, however, was questioning my sanity! She got pretty sensitive with elevator control and told me to pay attention when we landed! I had taken everything out of the baggage compartment. Careful filling out of the W&B said we were still OK. Did not run out of trim, however. Build 'em straight!

Never been in the back seat of a -8. Not sure how they compare. Been in the front seat. Interesting to have your ankles rubbing together when using the rudder pedals! 😂 Way too much room up there.....;)
 
I’m glad I sparked a great debate. But the comments I made are true. See there’s what people read from published articles and then there is information you get by taking to people that did the static test loads at Vans. They did make changes to wing in the RV-8, quietly….
Remember, they are in the business to sell airplanes . When some wings come off because they are not as strong as a RV-4 or 6 wing, it’s puts fear into folks out there looking to purchasing kits. 6 tests went to 12-13 g static and it still held. They changed the design (Ken) from the original and shaved a bunch of material out of the spar web. And that was not good. And then they put some back after the failures. Again, quietly.
The 8 is a good airplane but has many compromises both building wise and aerodynamically compared to Rockets, 4 and 6’s. 7 had some too with add of the giant tail due to spins. Probably the flattening of the fuse bottom didn’t help that much and using -8 wings.
Van had a chance a long time ago to take the Rocket and run with it. The 8 would have never been built if he did that. Harmon proved to him that gear geometry and keeping the design very simple worked. Van was just too stubborn to roll with it. Rest is history.
Now that the F-4 Raider is out, we can yet again see that with 180hp the airplane is a better concept and easier to build than an -8. Has more room up front and looks a hell of a lot better than the 8. However this is my opinion and Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. Those that want to build and love the -8, soldier on.
 
...While we're at it..... Paint or Polish?....Tailwheel or tri-gear?...Primer or no Primer?....Tip-up or Slider...? :D :D
 
Toobuilder said:
You have an electrical system in a Bucker?

heathen
Click to expand...

I didn’t notice that in Bobs post. Bob - you holding out on me? A Bucker?
Welcome to the club!
(Most of us have electrical systems, and Lycomings, except the very few Jungmeisters still flying with the Siemens.)
Flying a Bucker will make you wish an RV flew as well, unless you actually want to go somewhere, or want heat, or luggage, or…… ya, they fly well anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top