What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Torn Between -8 and -8A (crosswind data?)

SquawkVFR

SquawkVFR

Member
I'm shopping for my first airplane. After having read through the extensive "nose vs. tailwheel" never-ending thread, https://vansairforce.net/forums/nosewheel-vs-tailwheel.56/ (lots of good points in there by the way - I recommend all read through it) I have very specific questions, the answers to which (I hope) should produce little debate. These questions were not answered in the other thread, which is why I'm making a separate one here.

All superficial considerations aside, please answer the following questions:

At what crosswind speed will the -8 weathervane while taxiing on the ground?

What is the difference between the maximum crosswind landing/takeoff speed of the -8 and -8A?

Reason for the questions is I would like to predict the impact of each configuration on my ability to taxi, takeoff, and land. For the purposes of these questions, please assume both aircraft are exactly identical other than nose/tail configuration, a perfect pilot is at the controls, and the aircraft is loaded with only the pilot and at gross weight. Feel free to weigh the considerations of clean vs. flaps extended if you feel that may contribute one way or the other.
 
There is no perfect pilot. Nobody really knows what the maximum crosswind any RV actually is but many will tell you and those that do will almost always exaggerate.
A crappy pilot will probably survive a higher cross wind in an A model and walk away.
If your decision has boiled down to making this the final straw, you are an A guy. Go buy one and be happy!
(These are tongue in cheek comments in the vane that most A vs Conventional threads go).
PS - Love your forum name!
 
As the previous poster said, you won't get hard, accurate answers to your questions. But if you would like to know more about flying conventional gear aircraft, I'd suggest getting "The Compleat Taildragger Pilot" by Harvey S. Plourde. Good stuff for new and experienced conventional gear pilots.



Also, nothing beats thorough Transition Training, not just a couple of 'aircraft checkout' flights, in whatever RV you choose.

In addition, below are links to a collection of articles by Van himself on flying RVs. These should be useful for all RV pilots, but especially pilots new to RVs.

​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​

​
Good luck in your search!
 
I am a newish pilot like you. I would get a tailwheel endorsement and rent a tailwheel if you can, and get more flying hours with it. I know a pilot who had less flying time than you and flew his newly built RV8 like it was nothing.
 
Hopefully I can answer half of your question. For the RV-8A 25 knots of crosswind is about the max. Last time I tried it, I was just about out of rudder authority, and scraped the side of my wheel pant with the angle of the plane. The scraping crosswind speed is probably a function of the wheel pant build, but the rudder authority should be the same.
 
AaronG said:
Hopefully I can answer half of your question. For the RV-8A 25 knots of crosswind is about the max. Last time I tried it, I was just about out of rudder authority, and scraped the side of my wheel pant with the angle of the plane. The scraping crosswind speed is probably a function of the wheel pant build, but the rudder authority should be the same.
Click to expand...

Perfect. Exactly the type of data point I’m looking for. Thank you!
 
I own an RV8. I have put about 130 hours on it. I have about 650 hours tailwheel time with most being in a Citabria. I grew up flying in the windy Texas panhandle. I have landed my Citabria in a few 20-25 knot direct x-winds. It was not fun but it was doable. For the RV8 I would absolutely not want to land in anything more than 15 knots direct x-wind. I know there are many pilots that will say that it will handle much more than that. I am not comfortable with it. Maybe its me or maybe its my plane or something with aerodynamics but it does not feel like it has enough rudder authority to handle more than that. Mine has a heavier angle valve engine and hartzell cs prop out front so maybe that affects things differently IDK.

I love my RV8 and I think an 8 looks better with more ramp appeal than an 8A but if I am making a long x-country I am thinking much more about x-winds than I am with a trike. So I think the 8A is more practical airplane than the 8 for traveling long x-countrys. The 8A should also have considerably lower insurance costs.
 
Last edited:
lukejb said:
I own an RV8. I have put about 130 hours on it. I have about 650 hours tailwheel time with most being in a Citabria. I grew up flying in the windy Texas panhandle. I have landed my Citabria in a few 20-25 knot direct x-winds. It was not fun but it was doable. For the RV8 I would absolutely not want to land in anything more than 15 knots direct x-wind. I know there are many pilots that will say that it will handle much more than that. I am not comfortable with it. Maybe its me or maybe its my plane or something with aerodynamics but it does not feel like it has enough rudder authority to handle more than that. Mine has a heavier angle valve engine and hartzell cs prop out front so maybe that affects things differently IDK.

I love my RV8 and I think an 8 looks better with more ramp appeal than an 8A but if I am making a long x-country I am thinking much more about x-winds than I am with a trike. So I think the 8A is more practical airplane than the 8A for traveling long x-countrys. The 8A should also have considerably lower insurance costs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my “mission” is more x-country with occasional aerobatics. I couldn’t care less about looks. As long as the specs are there, I don’t care if it looks like an elephant.

By the way, I think you meant the 8A is more practical than the 8 for long x-countrys , right?
 
SquawkVFR said:
I don’t care if it looks like an elephant.

By the way, I think you meant the 8A is more practical than the 8 for long x-countrys , right?
Click to expand...
BTW, don't forget the looks is a subjective matter, while some like the looks of a taildragger, there are many that like the looks of nose dragger. I am also sure you have considered the difference in insurance cost, especially for a newer pilot.
 
My -8A is the easiest plane I’ve ever landed in crosswinds with. Ample control authority; in a 15 knot crosswind it feels like the controls are barely moving, amd instantaneous responsiveness in gusty winds. The next easiest - so far - is a Mooney.
 
Bavafa said:
BTW, don't forget the looks is a subjective matter, while some like the looks of a taildragger, there are many that like the looks of nose dragger. I am also sure you have considered the difference in insurance cost, especially for a newer pilot.
Click to expand...

I got a quote for an 8A which came in at $1,300/yr. Still waiting for the -8 quote to come back but i heard its gonna be much higher
 
SquawkVFR said:
Yeah, my “mission” is more x-country with occasional aerobatics. I couldn’t care less about looks. As long as the specs are there, I don’t care if it looks like an elephant.

By the way, I think you meant the 8A is more practical than the 8 for long x-countrys , right?
Click to expand...
Yeah thats what I meant
StuBob said:
If the issue is rudder authority, there should be no difference between the -8 and the -8A.
Click to expand...

For me, even with the 8 and the 8a having the same rudder, the 8a is still always going to have a higher x-wind component than the 8. I can run completely out of rudder authority on an 8a and still easily land it without it trying to swap ends on me. If I touchdown and side load the main gear a little on a trike due to running out of rudder authority it naturally just straightens out and usually no harm is done to the airplane. Landing the taildragger without enough rudder authority on pavement is a much more difficult task to keep it from swapping ends and something I would want to avoid.
 
FWIW, I fly the RV-8 and -14A pictured below. I've traveled from coast to coast in both and never really encountered winds that either aircraft couldn't handle. That said, my pucker factor is a little higher in the RV-8 with 15+ kt crosswinds, and I find myself subconsciously planning cross country stops favoring airports with two or more runways. Not so much in the tricycle-gear -14A.


IMG_1484.jpegN307EE Envigor.jpeg
 
Last edited:
PandaCub said:
FWIW, I fly the RV-8 and -14A pictured below. I've traveled from coast to coast in both and never really encountered winds that either aircraft couldn't handle. That said, my pucker factor is a little higher in the RV-8 with 15 kt crosswinds, and I find myself subconsciously planning cross country stops favoring airports with two or more runways. Not so much in the tricycle-gear -14A.


View attachment 59992View attachment 59993
Click to expand...

This helps. A lot. Thank you for sharing your unbiased opibion. You’ve got yourself a good-looking pair of birds there by the way
 
SquawkVFR said:
Yeah, my “mission” is more x-country with occasional aerobatics. I couldn’t care less about looks. As long as the specs are there, I don’t care if it looks like an elephant.

By the way, I think you meant the 8A is more practical than the 8 for long x-countrys , right?
Click to expand...
The answer to your last question is no. It makes no difference, 8A vs 8 for cross country practicality. They are essentially the same. The A model is usually slightly heavier, and might have slightly more drag, but you’d need a pretty sharp pencil to measure the difference. The answer to your original question has to do - 100% - with pilot capability/proficiency. Both airplanes have the same rudder, and the same capability to counteract the crosswind yaw performance you need to counteract what Is needed to keep the nose straight. The only difference is how well the pilot is at correcting for that crosswind. If you DON’T do it correctly, the A model is more forgiving. In the A model your CG is forward of your main landing gear, so a miss-aligned landing in a crosswind, which results in a side load on your main landing gear, is basically self correcting. Your CG swings the nose of the airplane to your direction of flight (whatever that is), and as long as your nose wheel is still off the ground, it is self correcting. In the tailwheel version, the opposite is true. A miss aligned crosswind landing results in an aggravated situation if it isn’t corrected initially. Your CG is behind the main landing gear, and any side load on that gear (misaligned with the runway centerline) will try to swing the tail in the wrong direction. Pilot proficiency in tail wheel airplanes is the key. Keep your nose straight, and you have plenty of rudder capability to do this, and you won’t have a problem. With proper cross wind landing techniques, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a tailwheel airplane or not.

I would avoid assuming someone’s experience with what they say is the max crosswind component. These are not type-certificated airplanes that have certified test pilot tested crosswind limitations. These RV’s are strictly up to whoever tested this limitation during Phase 1, and when you fly it, it might be different. I personally have never exceeded the limits of my rudder, and I have experienced very strong crosswinds that I wouldn’t want to repeat, but I never ran out of rudder authority. It wouldn’t have made a difference if it was an A model or straight 8. Proper crosswind landing technique is the key, hence a recommendation for training.

As an EAA flight advisor, if you don’t have much tailwheel experience , I would recommend the A model. If you are willing to take the training to become proficient in tailwheel airplanes, with an emphasis on RV tailwheel airplanes then it’s a personal choice. RV airplanes are very honest tailwheel airplanes, but I would not say that they are forgiving of pilot mishandling in the landing phase, and to a much lesser degree, the takeoff phase. This is not to say that they are difficult to fly, but you need to have the seat of pants ability to recognize any misalignment and make the proper corrections, like any tailwheel airplane.

BTW - EAA Flight Advisors are not married to one chapter only. If you are a member of EAA, you are entitled to free EAA Flight Advisor consultations, and it’s not just for EAB airplanes. Any EAA member that is flying a new to them airplane, restoration, homebuilt, warbird, etc for the first time may want to consult with an EAA Flight Advisor. You can find Flight Advisors that are proficient on your airplane on the EAA website.
e
 
Toobuilder said:
The nose wheel is much worse off than the tailwheel while in the taxi mode. Tailwheel has a steerable tailwheel while the A model has a free castoring nose wheel. a stiff crosswind with a nose wheel requires dragging a brake to keep it straight. Taildragger - not so much.
Click to expand...
Maybe a little, but I wouldn't say "much worse off."
For taxiing, it probably takes less than 10 mph of crosswind component to require deliberate crosswind weathervane management, but it is completely manageable. Just teach yourself to not ride the brakes. Apply full corrective rudder, then momentarily TAP the downwind brake as needed to keep the nose pointed where you need it. Taxi slowly...take your time.
Big picture: Taxiing with a crosswind is not your big concern. I believe your original set of questions represent your proper focus: Crosswind takeoffs and (particularly) landings in a tail dragger vs a nose dragger.
Despite all the non-A drivers who swear that "real men fly tailwheels", I quote Colonel Potter: "Horse hockey!"
Nosedraggers are easier in crosswind takeoffs and landings, but require A LITTLE attention for crosswind taxiing. If you like the challenge of a rudder dance for the takeoffs and landings, fly the taildragger. If you don't want to worry about that, and like slightly lower insurance rates, fly the nose-dragger. I love mine.
BTW: If you have a bride/girlfriend who you want to go fly with you, she'll probably appreciate having a much more complete view of the world in front of her. My bride, who flew with a friend in his taildragger 8, hated it when he set the tailwheel down, giving her zero view of the runway ahead (to which she had become quite accustomed in our 7A).

My 2 bits. Back into my hangar...
 
I owned an RV8 for several years, now own a RV 4 as it’s a better plane for my ops. C/W never bothered me in the 8 or 4, in fact I own 4 A/C all proper conventional U/C machines, I like the rugged and durable design, a nose dragger RV doesn’t look right (personnel opinion) and it’s obvious weakness is well documented. I’ve landed in 25 kts X-wind, it’s a challenge but 15 kts is a breeze👍 The Airbus however I hated in anything over 20 kts!
 
scrollF4 said:
Maybe a little, but I wouldn't say "much worse off."
Click to expand...
“Much worse” in the sense that it takes far less crosswind in a nose wheel to cause the pilot to take conscious anti-crosswind controls to manage compared to a tailwheel. The skillset required to manage a nose wheel is completely learnable and manageable, I agree. But then again, so are tailwheel skills.
 
I have an A model mostly because I like the looks and I didnt like the view in a tail wheel plane when I was taxiing. I know many pilots that say they can see just fine but I couldnt. As for cross wind, I am not comfortable 15 knots and dont really like it more than 10. I am only a 350 hour pilot with 200 in my 9A so I am still learning.

I have not had any issues taxiing using the rudder and brakes when needed but I dont leave the hangar if it is much over 10k.
 
First off, I'm a bit surprised at an insurance quote of $1300 for a low time pilot. What were your requirements/limits at that quote? Aren't you a relatively low time pilot with mainly 152 time? Or do I have you confused with someone else. Just an example, my 172 insured for $65K hull is under $500 but have owned the plane since 1987 so needless to say I have a lot of hours in it and have battle over 30kt crosswinds with not a scratch. Now, I also have a couple of Bush type TW aircraft, both of these are insured for under roughly the same hull value as the Cessna but the cost is over 3x for the premium due to them being TW aircraft. You don't want to know what the premium is when they are on floats...FAINT!! Also, aging seems to be another issue that has been affecting insurance rates of late. I have several friends that are past retirement age and are having difficulty finding a carrier. Best to stick to one that will cover you and hope they don't drop you once you hit 70.

Now, back to the crosswind discussion. I'll be the first to admit that I am a bit of a TW snob, I just prefer the looks of a conventional plane and is all I fly currently. But now that I am over 60, and not the quick acting steed of my youth, I have realized that I may be going back to a nose dragger in the future, just to alleviate some of the unneeded stress when flying into new country where the winds can really get your attention.

Case in point. I just went to Oregon to visit my son, yes, took a tour of the VANS factory while I was there to look at the RV-15. My son is the current owner of my old 172 and a top notch stick if I have to say so myself. We flew all over western Oregon and but on about 17 hours in a couple of days. Battled some nasty conditions with the son handling them without breaking a sweat. Just mentioning this due to the fact that I quickly realized that if we were a flight of two, and I were in one of my TW aircraft, I'm not sure if I would have been able to land in a couple of those places without some kind of mishap. The stoutness of the nosewheeled 172 and it's overall capabilities always amaze me.

All this is just food for thought. I mainly replied because I am also looking for an RV-8 but after this recent trip my thoughts have me leaning more towards one of the 'A' models. In all honesty, my original plan a couple of years ago was for an RV-9 but I found a smoking deal on a bushplane with floats and skis, so the RV was put on the back burner. Well, I am actively searching again now and I'm keeping all my options open, a 7,8,or 9 will all be considered.
 
Jonnyb said:
A friend of mine lands his -8 reliably in 30kts across. But he has thousands of hours tailwheel time. Would I try it? not a chance.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter how much time you have, the airplane can only do so much. You can’t keep an 8 straight at 30kts without dragging the windward wing on the tarmac. I’ve seen the damage.
However, send a video cause I want to watch!
 
JonJay said:
Doesn’t matter how much time you have, the airplane can only do so much. You can’t keep an 8 straight at 30kts without dragging the windward wing on the tarmac. I’ve seen the damage.
However, send a video cause I want to watch!
Click to expand...
Especially a left crosswind, where the pitot may be at risk.

The same is true of an -8A. The only difference in crosswind handling between the two is that the margin of error is greater with the nose wheel. There’s no disgrace in wanting that. After all, TW pilots like grass runways for the same reason!
 
JonJay said:
Doesn’t matter how much time you have, the airplane can only do so much. You can’t keep an 8 straight at 30kts without dragging the windward wing on the tarmac.
Click to expand...

The max crosswind component of any airplane is a geometry problem, not pilot skill. The max crosswind for any airplane is reached at the point where a something other than the wheels touch the earth before a wheel is in contact and the strut/gear is compressed.
 
Capt said:
I owned an RV8 for several years, now own a RV 4 as it’s a better plane for my ops.
Click to expand...
I own a -4 because that and the -3 where the choices back then. However, if I had to choose again, I would still choose the -4. I love the fit of the cockpit; too much room in the -8! ;)I like the looks of the -4 better with the cheek cowlings. It looks fast just sitting on the ground!
Capt said:
C/W never bothered me in the 8 or 4, in fact I own 4 A/C all proper conventional U/C machines, I like the rugged and durable design
a nose dragger RV doesn’t look right (personnel opinion)
Click to expand...
Agreed! Personal taste, however. The -8A does NOT look like a T-34....IMHO,,,,
Capt said:
I’ve landed in 25 kts X-wind, it’s a challenge but 15 kts is a breeze👍 The Airbus however I hated in anything over 20 kts!
Click to expand...
I think the -4 is easier to land in a cross wind than the Cub. Mine was also a 25kt landing somewhere in Missouri and I got pretty busy. But I also have a few hours in tailwheel aircraft; I think all but 50 or so of my hours. I always line up on the proposed runway to make sure I am not going to run out of rudder. If I hit the stops, I go somewhere else. I did, actually, land the Cub in Casper, WY in a 35 gusting to 40 crosswind. But I cheated: I just flew over and landed on the ramp! 😂True story! Tower: I can't approve that landing but you do what you have to do to get on the ground. Then did a helicopter departure from where I fueled up. Those were the days.....!
 
Last edited:
SquawkVFR said:
Yeah, my “mission” is more x-country with occasional aerobatics. I couldn’t care less about looks. As long as the specs are there, I don’t care if it looks like an elephant.

By the way, I think you meant the 8A is more practical than the 8 for long x-countrys , right?
Click to expand...
Well 3 RV-8s have made round the world flights, no -8As.

I've had a 20-25 knot gusting crosswind at the end of a 520 nm flight. It wasn't fun but manageable with a wing-low wheeler and bringing the power back gradually.
 
My first build was an RV-8A. I have ~700 hrs in it and started off as a low time pilot. The third build was an RV-8 and have ~500 hours in it.

I was a relatively low time pilot with the 8A. I started flying the 8 at ~1400 hours. My thoughts:
- The most crosswind in the 8A was ~25kts or so. The most in the 8 has been ~20 kts. If anyone tells you it makes no difference between the 8A and 8 they are a much better pilot than me. In other words, the 8A will be more forgiving to such things as not having the upwind wing low enough. Here note that I did not go out of my way to explore higher cross wind conditions.
- I never ran out of rudder in either the 8A or 8. I was worried about this as I learned tailwheel on a Texas Tail Dragger (150 converted to tail dragger). A horrible airplane. I consistently ran out of rudder on landing.
- Nose wheel taxi with a strong cross wind may require some differential braking, but not enough to worry about. As a test I flew the 8 with the tail wheel in full castoring. Applying the 8A skills made this simple.
- The 8 is much more sensitive to loading. For example I only do wheelies when solo, three point with a passenger. I also limit the size of the passenger in the 8 much more than the 8A.
- I have done fly ins where a crosswind kept some tail dragger home while the nose gear guys showed up. This reflected pilot decisions, not airplane restrictions.
- Both planes fly the same. The 8 being ~5kts faster (same engine and prop) but other considerations when comparing two planes may play much more.
- The 8A is flying with its new owner (who takes very good care of it). Insurance coverage is about the same. The 8 runs ~$200 more per year than the 8A.

My recommendation is to get transition training with someone like Bruce Bohannon in TX then make your decision.

The photo is build #1 and #3 meeting for breakfast.

Carl
 

Attachments

  • N716RV & N8PH 4-18-21.jpeg
    N716RV & N8PH 4-18-21.jpeg
    4 MB · Views: 28
Sam Buchanan said:
These threads are so predictable......

Still waiting for "40 kts"...... :D
Click to expand...

I have no reason to disbelieve him.

There’s other people here landing in 25kts across without issue.

Maybe someone could point out the geometrically correct max cross wind for an RV-8? Because that, of course, that would be the max for the type and therefore should be a limit should it not?
 
One more factor between the -8 and the -8A (that doesn't really have to do with the OP's crosswind question): do you plan on doing much flying in and out of grass/dirt strips? If so, IMHO the -8 has the upper hand as you can add the Sky Designs 6.00-6 wheels and fairings, as well as the Condor pneumatic tailwheel. This adds significantly more ground clearance and bump tolerance while only shaving 3 - 4 knots off cruise speed (I flight plan for 160 kts at 9 gph and usually get a little better than that).

These two options have turned my -8 into a very tolerable platform for light backcountry touring. Don't get me wrong - the RV-8 is by no means a bush plane - but adding the larger tailwheel and mains opens up more backcountry strips that I wouldn't otherwise attempt. Of course I have my minimums (I certainly wouldn't try Soldier Bar, for example) but other Idaho strips like Johnson Creek, Moose Creek, Big Creek and Gaston's in Arkansas are now a breeze. My current "surface roughness" minimum is probably the Shoshoni, WY strip pictured below. I personally would not like to do this one in a stock -8A.

If you decide on the -8, spend a few days with Bruce Bohannon in Texas. Some of the best instruction I've ever had.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7867.jpeg
    IMG_7867.jpeg
    1.8 MB · Views: 36
  • IMG_7868.jpeg
    IMG_7868.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 34
  • IMG_7864.jpeg
    IMG_7864.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 41
  • IMG_7751.jpeg
    IMG_7751.jpeg
    356.5 KB · Views: 38
Landing on the ramp: if there is a control tower don't ask for permission, just do it and ask for forgiveness. Cross country my first choice is multiple runways. Second choice a nearby alternate with the runway oriented closer to the wind direction. In the desert SW there are quite a few airports that used to have multiple runways, now all but one are closed. In a bad crosswind consider one of the closed runways or a taxiway. Some of the SW airports have one or more dirt runway. Probably less chance of hurting the airplane on the dirt than ground looping on the pavement. The last option is a 150' wide runway-land at an angle or even across the runway.
I don't trust the forecasts any where in the West. I have encountered situations on a single runway airport where there was a tailwind at each end of a single runway.
My procedure with my Wittman Tailwind is a daybreak takeoff with a lot of fuel and 6 hours later I am past the mountains. The crosswinds in NE and KS are much more manageable than in the mountains.
 
I have seen many ground looped -8's, unfortunately. Spooked me enough to start building an -8a. As others suggest I feel the limiting factor on crosswind is the pilots ability but the forgiveness in the tricycle is greater in my low time opinion. In the real world sometime we might grow rusty due to lack of practice or even chances to practice in a moderate crosswind.
I would not want be be on an unfamiliar shaggy grass field with a stiff crosswind but I feel the average pilot has higher success rate in a trike.
 
Toobuilder said:
The nose wheel is much worse off than the tailwheel while in the taxi mode. Tailwheel has a steerable tailwheel while the A model has a free castoring nose wheel. a stiff crosswind with a nose wheel requires dragging a brake to keep it straight. Taildragger - not so much.
Click to expand...
As a newbie, I feel like this is an important consideration. Coming from a C150 background, I incorrectly assumed that all trikes have a steerable nosewheel like the C150. Good info, and thanks for sharing!
 
scrollF4 said:
Maybe a little, but I wouldn't say "much worse off."
For taxiing, it probably takes less than 10 mph of crosswind component to require deliberate crosswind weathervane management, but it is completely manageable. Just teach yourself to not ride the brakes. Apply full corrective rudder, then momentarily TAP the downwind brake as needed to keep the nose pointed where you need it. Taxi slowly...take your time.
Big picture: Taxiing with a crosswind is not your big concern. I believe your original set of questions represent your proper focus: Crosswind takeoffs and (particularly) landings in a tail dragger vs a nose dragger.
Despite all the non-A drivers who swear that "real men fly tailwheels", I quote Colonel Potter: "Horse hockey!"
Nosedraggers are easier in crosswind takeoffs and landings, but require A LITTLE attention for crosswind taxiing. If you like the challenge of a rudder dance for the takeoffs and landings, fly the taildragger. If you don't want to worry about that, and like slightly lower insurance rates, fly the nose-dragger. I love mine.
BTW: If you have a bride/girlfriend who you want to go fly with you, she'll probably appreciate having a much more complete view of the world in front of her. My bride, who flew with a friend in his taildragger 8, hated it when he set the tailwheel down, giving her zero view of the runway ahead (to which she had become quite accustomed in our 7A).

My 2 bits. Back into my hangar...
Click to expand...
I'm not so concerned about insurance rates or "man points." My primary concerns are performance and safety. I'm not convinced the marginally higher tailwheel performance outweighs the nosewheel safety benefit. I say this at the risk of this thread getting dumped into the never-ending nose/tail wheel debate thread. This thread isn't intended for that debate, but rather to simply collect objective evidence regarding the merits of crosswind performance of the -8 vs. -8A in the aforementioned phases of flight.
 
WWhunter said:
First off, I'm a bit surprised at an insurance quote of $1300 for a low time pilot. What were your requirements/limits at that quote? Aren't you a relatively low time pilot with mainly 152 time? Or do I have you confused with someone else. Just an example, my 172 insured for $65K hull is under $500 but have owned the plane since 1987 so needless to say I have a lot of hours in it and have battle over 30kt crosswinds with not a scratch. Now, I also have a couple of Bush type TW aircraft, both of these are insured for under roughly the same hull value as the Cessna but the cost is over 3x for the premium due to them being TW aircraft. You don't want to know what the premium is when they are on floats...FAINT!! Also, aging seems to be another issue that has been affecting insurance rates of late. I have several friends that are past retirement age and are having difficulty finding a carrier. Best to stick to one that will cover you and hope they don't drop you once you hit 70.

Now, back to the crosswind discussion. I'll be the first to admit that I am a bit of a TW snob, I just prefer the looks of a conventional plane and is all I fly currently. But now that I am over 60, and not the quick acting steed of my youth, I have realized that I may be going back to a nose dragger in the future, just to alleviate some of the unneeded stress when flying into new country where the winds can really get your attention.

Case in point. I just went to Oregon to visit my son, yes, took a tour of the VANS factory while I was there to look at the RV-15. My son is the current owner of my old 172 and a top notch stick if I have to say so myself. We flew all over western Oregon and but on about 17 hours in a couple of days. Battled some nasty conditions with the son handling them without breaking a sweat. Just mentioning this due to the fact that I quickly realized that if we were a flight of two, and I were in one of my TW aircraft, I'm not sure if I would have been able to land in a couple of those places without some kind of mishap. The stoutness of the nosewheeled 172 and it's overall capabilities always amaze me.

All this is just food for thought. I mainly replied because I am also looking for an RV-8 but after this recent trip my thoughts have me leaning more towards one of the 'A' models. In all honesty, my original plan a couple of years ago was for an RV-9 but I found a smoking deal on a bushplane with floats and skis, so the RV was put on the back burner. Well, I am actively searching again now and I'm keeping all my options open, a 7,8,or 9 will all be considered.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why an "internet person" like myself would benefit by posting bogus info on insurance rates. I'm not in the insurance business, nor am I here to impress anyone. I'm just here looking for pointers from gumpy and crusty pilots, so I don't have to experience the pain and suffering they did going through this stuff. I don't know how insurance companies come up with their rates for sure, but from what I understand it's mostly due to the accident history of a particular type of aircraft. It stands to reason that there is a higher statistical probability of crashing a -8 than a -8A. I'm not going to pretend to know why that's the case. To me, it doesn't matter. There's a good reason the insurance company finds the -8A less risky. For me, I'm all about safety. I'm sure there are plenty of good and safe tail pilots out there. Perhaps I could become one as well, given enough training. However, I'm not yet convinced there's an objectively defensible reason to fly tailwheel, given the option of a nosewheel, at this point.
 
Carl Froehlich said:
My first build was an RV-8A. I have ~700 hrs in it and started off as a low time pilot. The third build was an RV-8 and have ~500 hours in it.

I was a relatively low time pilot with the 8A. I started flying the 8 at ~1400 hours. My thoughts:
- The most crosswind in the 8A was ~25kts or so. The most in the 8 has been ~20 kts. If anyone tells you it makes no difference between the 8A and 8 they are a much better pilot than me. In other words, the 8A will be more forgiving to such things as not having the upwind wing low enough. Here note that I did not go out of my way to explore higher cross wind conditions.
- I never ran out of rudder in either the 8A or 8. I was worried about this as I learned tailwheel on a Texas Tail Dragger (150 converted to tail dragger). A horrible airplane. I consistently ran out of rudder on landing.
- Nose wheel taxi with a strong cross wind may require some differential braking, but not enough to worry about. As a test I flew the 8 with the tail wheel in full castoring. Applying the 8A skills made this simple.
- The 8 is much more sensitive to loading. For example I only do wheelies when solo, three point with a passenger. I also limit the size of the passenger in the 8 much more than the 8A.
- I have done fly ins where a crosswind kept some tail dragger home while the nose gear guys showed up. This reflected pilot decisions, not airplane restrictions.
- Both planes fly the same. The 8 being ~5kts faster (same engine and prop) but other considerations when comparing two planes may play much more.
- The 8A is flying with its new owner (who takes very good care of it). Insurance coverage is about the same. The 8 runs ~$200 more per year than the 8A.

My recommendation is to get transition training with someone like Bruce Bohannon in TX then make your decision.

The photo is build #1 and #3 meeting for breakfast.

Carl
Click to expand...
This is the exact type of feedback I'm looking for. Thank you. Someone else recommended Bruce Bohannon, so I called him this weekend. Unfortunately, he is permanently retired from flying due to medial reasons.
 
PandaCub said:
One more factor between the -8 and the -8A (that doesn't really have to do with the OP's crosswind question): do you plan on doing much flying in and out of grass/dirt strips? If so, IMHO the -8 has the upper hand as you can add the Sky Designs 6.00-6 wheels and fairings, as well as the Condor pneumatic tailwheel. This adds significantly more ground clearance and bump tolerance while only shaving 3 - 4 knots off cruise speed (I flight plan for 160 kts at 9 gph and usually get a little better than that).

These two options have turned my -8 into a very tolerable platform for light backcountry touring. Don't get me wrong - the RV-8 is by no means a bush plane - but adding the larger tailwheel and mains opens up more backcountry strips that I wouldn't otherwise attempt. Of course I have my minimums (I certainly wouldn't try Soldier Bar, for example) but other Idaho strips like Johnson Creek, Moose Creek, Big Creek and Gaston's in Arkansas are now a breeze. My current "surface roughness" minimum is probably the Shoshoni, WY strip pictured below. I personally would not like to do this one in a stock -8A.

If you decide on the -8, spend a few days with Bruce Bohannon in Texas. Some of the best instruction I've ever had.
Click to expand...
Good tips for sure. At this point in my flying career, I don't anticipate much dirt/grass strip landings. I do recognize this is where the rubber meets the road between the two configurations and would be a deciding factor if such air strips were a mission objective.

Unfortunately, Bruce is now medically retired, and after speaking with him this weekend, he has not yet identified his protege/replacement.
 
I've owned both... 100+ hours in the -8, about 30+ in the -8A.
* The -8A is very easy to taxi without brakes if there is enough air over the rudder, meaning, not much required. And if the crosswind is too much, NEVER drag a brake. Use brake to head away from the wind a touch, and after the plane weathervanes, tap the brake. Sort of like an S-turn with taildraggers only different.
* In the -8, I celebrated every power off landing that had absolutely no bounce. In the -8A, my first landing was so soft that I could barely feel the wheels touch. That pattern was repeated over and over. In that sense, the -8A will be easier in a crosswind because pitch won't require as much attention.
* The -8 looks lots cooler on the ground, and, hate to say it, was a lot more ego boost when you got in. And it was psychologically easier to fly the -8 aggressively.
* The -8A had a subtle fish tailing aspect in cruise that made a CFI buddy in the back seat want to call the flight short. Never had anybody in the back of the -8. Not sure either would be a good two seat X-C airplane with a sensitive passenger.
* It's not just the size of the rudder, but also landing gear geometry the plays into crosswind capability. I was leery of the -8 crosswind capability till on one long X-C, there was more crosswind than I wanted and no attractive alternative. Paid attention, no problem.
* It's lots easier to see over the nose in an -8A. If you're on a crowded ramp filled with non-pilots, that's a big plus.
 
SquawkVFR said:
I'm not sure why an "internet person" like myself would benefit by posting bogus info on insurance rates.
Click to expand...

Apologies if you felt I was saying your quotes were bogus, I had no intention of my comment coming across that way. I was truly amazed at that rate quote as I have 500+ TW, 400+SES, and 2000+SEL hours. Maybe the RV's get a much reduced rate compared to other TW aircraft. I am actively looking for an RV-8 but haven't bother getting a quote until I find the right airplane. My current planes, RANS S7 and Murphy Rebel are both $1500/ea for $65K hull and liability. You don't want to even guess on what floatplane insurance is!!
My 172 is less than $500 for the same valuation. I was just expecting the typical RV-8 to be closer to $2,000+ with a $100K+ value.

Good luck in your search and final decision.
 
My -8A’s rudder is effective for steering at a quick walking pace. About the only time I actually need brakes is for the runup and the last half foot of stopping on the ramp (and even that is sometimes due to pulling power too late). As with all aircraft, energy management is key, even at a slow taxi speed. Stay ahead of the plane, know where you’ll need to slow down, and reduce power before that point; make proper control inputs for the wind. Fly and taxi with just the tips of your toes on the bottom of the rudder pedals to cut the chance of excessive or inadvertent braking.
 
SquawkVFR said:
As a newbie, I feel like this is an important consideration. Coming from a C150 background, I incorrectly assumed that all trikes have a steerable nosewheel like the C150. Good info, and thanks for sharing!
Click to expand...
There are several other GA aircraft with free castoring nosewheels - the Grumman AA series and Cirrus SR, for example. Also plenty of jets - my L-39, as another example. And even that one, at 9,000+ pounds, would weathervane into the breeze at taxi speeds. A free castoring nose wheel takes some new skills to learn, and some of those skills are learned wrong early (like dragging a brake to stay on centerline) and can result in a brake fire and loss of the aircraft. Learnable, yes. But to your point, the tailwheel RV is actually easier to manage in crosswind taxi and more intuitive ON THIS SINGLE DATA POINT than the nose wheel.
 
Ed_Wischmeyer said:
I've owned both... 100+ hours in the -8, about 30+ in the -8A.
* The -8A is very easy to taxi without brakes if there is enough air over the rudder, meaning, not much required. And if the crosswind is too much, NEVER drag a brake. Use brake to head away from the wind a touch, and after the plane weathervanes, tap the brake. Sort of like an S-turn with taildraggers only different.
* In the -8, I celebrated every power off landing that had absolutely no bounce. In the -8A, my first landing was so soft that I could barely feel the wheels touch. That pattern was repeated over and over. In that sense, the -8A will be easier in a crosswind because pitch won't require as much attention.
* The -8 looks lots cooler on the ground, and, hate to say it, was a lot more ego boost when you got in. And it was psychologically easier to fly the -8 aggressively.
* The -8A had a subtle fish tailing aspect in cruise that made a CFI buddy in the back seat want to call the flight short. Never had anybody in the back of the -8. Not sure either would be a good two seat X-C airplane with a sensitive passenger.
* It's not just the size of the rudder, but also landing gear geometry the plays into crosswind capability. I was leery of the -8 crosswind capability till on one long X-C, there was more crosswind than I wanted and no attractive alternative. Paid attention, no problem.
* It's lots easier to see over the nose in an -8A. If you're on a crowded ramp filled with non-pilots, that's a big plus.
Click to expand...
A bunch of more tips to put in my back pocket. Thank you!
 
WWhunter said:
Apologies if you felt I was saying your quotes were bogus, I had no intention of my comment coming across that way. I was truly amazed at that rate quote as I have 500+ TW, 400+SES, and 2000+SEL hours. Maybe the RV's get a much reduced rate compared to other TW aircraft. I am actively looking for an RV-8 but haven't bother getting a quote until I find the right airplane. My current planes, RANS S7 and Murphy Rebel are both $1500/ea for $65K hull and liability. You don't want to even guess on what floatplane insurance is!!
My 172 is less than $500 for the same valuation. I was just expecting the typical RV-8 to be closer to $2,000+ with a $100K+ value.

Good luck in your search and final decision.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I work with an insurance broker who pulls quotes from multiple insurance companies, and the range varied quite a bit. Some quotes were over $4k/year. Others didn't even offer a quote because my risk profile was outside their underwriting guidelines. So, your surprise at the good rate is justified. I was also pleasantly surprised
 
One thing to consider is the difficulty of pushing an A model backwards into a hangar. It’s substantially more annoying than pushing a taildragger backwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top