I may as well get in the mix. My purchase is still out on the distant horizon, but I'd really appreciate some help with this one.
Space is a major factor. I'm a big fella, ask captain_john. 6'3 330. I'd likely be snug in any choice I make.
ease of handling is another biggie. I'm a student pilot right now. Whatever I chose has to be predictable in manner.
capacity: gotta be able to haul me and a passenger and hopefully not be at gross
My initial thoughts on which RV to build were 7,8,9 all of the A variety.
The 9a sounded appealing because of the stated lower roll rate, slower stall speed, etc. Seemed right up my alley. Sporty, but not too sporty. Where it lost me was the inability to go upside down. Right now I don't know if I want to get upside down, but I might. If I decide in the future that I do, and I have built the 9A I'll be SOL.
With that said the 9 was out of the picture.
Tail dragger or trike? I'm feeling like trike right now. It's what I'm comfortable with.
That left me with the 7A and 8A. The biggest difference I can see between the two is the seating arrangement, side by side or tandem. I'm sure there are more differences that I'm not seeing yet.
For those of you building or flying 8s or 7s, what are some of the perceived/real benefits of your plane over the other?
thanks,
Keith
7 or 8, A or not?
7 or 8, A or not?
Last edited by papakeith on Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Spike
- Chief Rivet Banger
- Posts: 4013
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm
- Location: Baltimore, MD
- Contact:
Hmmm, Honestly, I would seriously look at the numbers and crunch them with weight and balance, etc. I know I'm big (not as big as you) and with Patti she and I are bumping up against max gross with full fuel. The RV Series might be a bit of a stretch.
-- Spike
-- Spike
http://www.rivetbangers.com - Now integrating web and mail!
Current Build: 2 years into a beautiful little girl
Current Build: 2 years into a beautiful little girl
-
Spike
- Chief Rivet Banger
- Posts: 4013
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm
- Location: Baltimore, MD
- Contact:
The preview plans contain all of the numbers and potential loadings. I would think though that Vans would provide this if requested. I don't think that they have it on the web.
-- John
-- John
http://www.rivetbangers.com - Now integrating web and mail!
Current Build: 2 years into a beautiful little girl
Current Build: 2 years into a beautiful little girl
W&B Database
Check out this:
http://www.rvproject.com/wab/
It's Dan Checkoway's site, and he has an excellent database of W&Bs of various actual RVs w/ different configurations. The slick thing is you can click on a tail number and it gives you a W&B calculator for that plane. So RV-8A Tail #N598X w/ 42gal of fuel, a 330lb pilot and 150lb pax + 20lbs of baggage comes in at:
1786lbs, 84.18" arm, 150344.4 moment
Which is inside the envelope. It is also 236 above the aerobatic gross of 1550.
It also has some "average" planes... but it is more informative to pick a plane configured as yours would be configured.
Have fun!
http://www.rvproject.com/wab/
It's Dan Checkoway's site, and he has an excellent database of W&Bs of various actual RVs w/ different configurations. The slick thing is you can click on a tail number and it gives you a W&B calculator for that plane. So RV-8A Tail #N598X w/ 42gal of fuel, a 330lb pilot and 150lb pax + 20lbs of baggage comes in at:
1786lbs, 84.18" arm, 150344.4 moment
Which is inside the envelope. It is also 236 above the aerobatic gross of 1550.
It also has some "average" planes... but it is more informative to pick a plane configured as yours would be configured.
Have fun!
Jon
RV-8A -- emp.
RV-8A -- emp.
I know the feeling...
I initially wanted to build a -4 but changed my mind when I realized that if I weighed 5lbs less than I weighed at 17 (and I wasn't a fat 17yo, though I've picked up bad habits since), and my heaviest "frequent passenger" (my father) weighed 5lbs less than he says he weighed when he got out of USMC boot camp, I could just carry full fuel and 20lbs of "stuff".
Regarding the dragger/A question... I'm in a similar situation (still a student) and planning on an A, but not because of familiarity or ease. By the time you've flown off the test hours, you'll be familiar with whatever you build. My perception is that the A will give you a slightly broader range of abilities if you fly it with the same skill you'd fly a taildragger. It can lean just a little farther back on take-off, brake just a little bit harder on landing. It may take more attention (read: you've got to remember the Soft Field procedures from your PTS if you want to use it on a soft field) but you'll be rewarded for your efforts.
One of the planes I considered building (bought the plans) was a Bearhawk. 4-seat tube&cloth taildragger. I got a ride in one, a beautiful (prize-winning) plane. A "To see it is to love it" sort of bird. The owner landed it twice while I was aboard, once on pavement and the second time on dirt. On pavement the tailwheel came down first and the landing was squirrely to say the least. On the second landing he chose the dirt next to the runway (private strip) because it was "easier to land on dirt", and again put the tailwheel down and dragged it around while he got the mains to settle. If I'm lucky, I'll build one someday...I think it is a cool airplane all around...but it was an eye opener too.
I initially wanted to build a -4 but changed my mind when I realized that if I weighed 5lbs less than I weighed at 17 (and I wasn't a fat 17yo, though I've picked up bad habits since), and my heaviest "frequent passenger" (my father) weighed 5lbs less than he says he weighed when he got out of USMC boot camp, I could just carry full fuel and 20lbs of "stuff".
Regarding the dragger/A question... I'm in a similar situation (still a student) and planning on an A, but not because of familiarity or ease. By the time you've flown off the test hours, you'll be familiar with whatever you build. My perception is that the A will give you a slightly broader range of abilities if you fly it with the same skill you'd fly a taildragger. It can lean just a little farther back on take-off, brake just a little bit harder on landing. It may take more attention (read: you've got to remember the Soft Field procedures from your PTS if you want to use it on a soft field) but you'll be rewarded for your efforts.
One of the planes I considered building (bought the plans) was a Bearhawk. 4-seat tube&cloth taildragger. I got a ride in one, a beautiful (prize-winning) plane. A "To see it is to love it" sort of bird. The owner landed it twice while I was aboard, once on pavement and the second time on dirt. On pavement the tailwheel came down first and the landing was squirrely to say the least. On the second landing he chose the dirt next to the runway (private strip) because it was "easier to land on dirt", and again put the tailwheel down and dragged it around while he got the mains to settle. If I'm lucky, I'll build one someday...I think it is a cool airplane all around...but it was an eye opener too.
Jon
RV-8A -- emp.
RV-8A -- emp.
-
captain_john
- Sparky
- Posts: 5880
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: KPYM
PK, like we discussed while here at my shop, the -8 may be the best choice for you.
Also, the -8A has more room inside due to the lack of gear towers inside the cockpit. Personally, if I were a big guy like you it wouldn't stop me from building a taildragger. But of course, I am a SUPERPILOT!
j/k
I feel the need to joke around when discussing these things.
Soooo, mebbe an -8A if you are already likened to the nosedragger persuation?
CJ
Also, the -8A has more room inside due to the lack of gear towers inside the cockpit. Personally, if I were a big guy like you it wouldn't stop me from building a taildragger. But of course, I am a SUPERPILOT!
j/k I feel the need to joke around when discussing these things.
Soooo, mebbe an -8A if you are already likened to the nosedragger persuation?
CJRV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
7 vs 8
PK,
I think the -7 (A or not), especially with the tip-up canopy, looks gorgeous. Not quite as slick as some of the composite planes, but very very fine. The slider canopy version isn't far behind it. The performance is very similar (the -8/-8A has a slight edge all around). Depending on what you'll be doing, the side-by-side seating may be better. It is likely to be much better for additional flight training (e.g. instrument training, flight reviews, etc).
My reasoning went like this:
The -8A is (compared to the -7A):
It all comes down to, "Because that's what I want."
I think the -7 (A or not), especially with the tip-up canopy, looks gorgeous. Not quite as slick as some of the composite planes, but very very fine. The slider canopy version isn't far behind it. The performance is very similar (the -8/-8A has a slight edge all around). Depending on what you'll be doing, the side-by-side seating may be better. It is likely to be much better for additional flight training (e.g. instrument training, flight reviews, etc).
My reasoning went like this:
The -8A is (compared to the -7A):
- + Faster
+ Lighter
+ Better visibility (or at least different)
+ Not quite as common
+ No elbow-bumping with passenger
? More interior room ?
- Smaller Panel
- Possible W/B issues?
- Limited Rear Controls/Instruments (training)
- No visual communications w/ passenger
- Passenger may have hard time reading instruments... reduced "load sharing" potential.
It all comes down to, "Because that's what I want."
Jon
RV-8A -- emp.
RV-8A -- emp.
-
captain_john
- Sparky
- Posts: 5880
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: KPYM
Re: 7 vs 8
OK, I will take you to task on those.
+ Faster - Not necessarily
+ Lighter - Really close if not negligible, depending on how they are built
+ Better visibility (or at least different) - Tip up cannot be beaten, totally naked
+ Not quite as common - Not according to our own polls
+ No elbow-bumping with passenger - Hands down winner
? More interior room ? - Well, more baggage, but split up. Also CG sensitive... comparatively
Now, I do agree... build what you wanna fly!
CJ
+ Faster - Not necessarily
+ Lighter - Really close if not negligible, depending on how they are built
+ Better visibility (or at least different) - Tip up cannot be beaten, totally naked
+ Not quite as common - Not according to our own polls
+ No elbow-bumping with passenger - Hands down winner
? More interior room ? - Well, more baggage, but split up. Also CG sensitive... comparatively
Now, I do agree... build what you wanna fly!
CJRV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
REAL PILOTS FLY TANDEM PLANES!
Err... I mean, I just like "idea" of the -8 a little better. I've got to admit, every time I see another RV I get a little bit of that... what's the term... like when you are in a restaurant and see food being delivered to other people and it all looks great... I get that feeling.
That said...
Faster on paper of course. That's the only faster that counts, right? "Official specs" give the -8 a 5 MPH edge. Speed is like MPG in cars... you always take the most favorable numbers and official specs because otherwise you'll have to face reality. Shudder.
Lighter... I went by Dan's W/B page. The -8As there average 58lbs lighter than the -7As (~20lbs lighter than the -7s). The -8As average 54lbs lighter than the -8s. A builder can mess up anything and I'm sure I will...but in principle the -8A should be the lighter.
Visibility...as I said, different. It reminds me of my first practice cross country. I was flying along trying to find a #$*&@$ checkpoint on the ground, getting more and more frustrated. Finally, my CFI takes the controls, puts the plane into a serious slip to the left, and there's my land mark, as plain as the nose on krusty the clown's face...right exactly where I was flying. He could see it the whole time of course, but I couldn't because it was blocked from my view by the cowl. I doubt the -8 would have that problem. As far as the bar is concerned, as I said the -7 tip up is gorgeous... I'm envious.... just not envious enough.
Common... you are correct that there are more -8s than -7s. I mispoke...should've clarified my meaning anyway. I was thinking -8s vs. everything else. There are 2502 side-by-side RVs flying, compared to 1748 tandem RVs. Beyond that, most planes seem to be side-by-side nowadays.
As I said, I wasn't sure about the interior room.
None of it matters though because REAL PILOTS FLY TANDEM PLANES! (Which, if true, means that I'm not a real pilot, b/c I've never flown a tandem plane ).
Err... I mean, I just like "idea" of the -8 a little better.
I've got to admit, every time I see another RV I get a little bit of that... what's the term... like when you are in a restaurant and see food being delivered to other people and it all looks great... I get that feeling. That said...
Faster on paper of course. That's the only faster that counts, right? "Official specs" give the -8 a 5 MPH edge. Speed is like MPG in cars... you always take the most favorable numbers and official specs because otherwise you'll have to face reality. Shudder.
Lighter... I went by Dan's W/B page. The -8As there average 58lbs lighter than the -7As (~20lbs lighter than the -7s). The -8As average 54lbs lighter than the -8s. A builder can mess up anything and I'm sure I will...but in principle the -8A should be the lighter.
Visibility...as I said, different. It reminds me of my first practice cross country. I was flying along trying to find a #$*&@$ checkpoint on the ground, getting more and more frustrated. Finally, my CFI takes the controls, puts the plane into a serious slip to the left, and there's my land mark, as plain as the nose on krusty the clown's face...right exactly where I was flying. He could see it the whole time of course, but I couldn't because it was blocked from my view by the cowl. I doubt the -8 would have that problem. As far as the bar is concerned, as I said the -7 tip up is gorgeous... I'm envious.... just not envious enough.
Common... you are correct that there are more -8s than -7s. I mispoke...should've clarified my meaning anyway. I was thinking -8s vs. everything else. There are 2502 side-by-side RVs flying, compared to 1748 tandem RVs. Beyond that, most planes seem to be side-by-side nowadays.
As I said, I wasn't sure about the interior room.
None of it matters though because REAL PILOTS FLY TANDEM PLANES! (Which, if true, means that I'm not a real pilot, b/c I've never flown a tandem plane
).Jon
RV-8A -- emp.
RV-8A -- emp.
So after looking at the numbers on Dan's site. It seems that about the only way I can do anything aerobatic would be alone or with about 5 gallons of fuel. This doesn't lend itself to much in the way of training.
So maybe the Vans line isnt' the one for me. Maybe my first build shouldn't be an aerobatic platform. Maybe the 9A is a viable option for me after all.
I'm open to suggestions. I was drawn to the Vans line because of the huge builder network out here, the quality and relative ease of construction were big plusses too. Maybe they are not the fit for me. If not Vans then what?
Lets say I have a fantasy budget in the neighborhood of 50k. What else is out there that would work for me?
So maybe the Vans line isnt' the one for me. Maybe my first build shouldn't be an aerobatic platform. Maybe the 9A is a viable option for me after all.
I'm open to suggestions. I was drawn to the Vans line because of the huge builder network out here, the quality and relative ease of construction were big plusses too. Maybe they are not the fit for me. If not Vans then what?
Lets say I have a fantasy budget in the neighborhood of 50k. What else is out there that would work for me?
PK,
Re: aerobatics....as I understand it, the plane must be flight tested in a particular maneuver before it is legal to carry a passenger through that maneuver. So before you can do a loop with two people in the plane, a solo pilot must have performed and logged loops in that plane. Training is carrying a passenger.... Which, unless you are going to have someone else do the flight testing, pretty much rules out *learning* acro in your own homebuilt as far as I'm concerned.
My plan is to get acro training in someone else's plane (probably not even an RV), then perform my own test series on basic acro maneuvers... then limit acro to solo flying until I'm very sure of my skills. So the acro weight limit doesn't bother me much. Veyond the weight limit, you've got to consider parachutes and other necessities, BTW.
Re: other planes... I off the top of my head I can't think of any kit planes that allow much more than 500lbs load for acro. I'm sure there are some?
Re: aerobatics....as I understand it, the plane must be flight tested in a particular maneuver before it is legal to carry a passenger through that maneuver. So before you can do a loop with two people in the plane, a solo pilot must have performed and logged loops in that plane. Training is carrying a passenger.... Which, unless you are going to have someone else do the flight testing, pretty much rules out *learning* acro in your own homebuilt as far as I'm concerned.
My plan is to get acro training in someone else's plane (probably not even an RV), then perform my own test series on basic acro maneuvers... then limit acro to solo flying until I'm very sure of my skills. So the acro weight limit doesn't bother me much. Veyond the weight limit, you've got to consider parachutes and other necessities, BTW.
Re: other planes... I off the top of my head I can't think of any kit planes that allow much more than 500lbs load for acro. I'm sure there are some?
Jon
RV-8A -- emp.
RV-8A -- emp.
Re: 7 vs 8
CJ, I regularly fly with 2 RV7's and a RV9 and I have to throttle way back to keep from running away from them. When you get your IO390 powered 7 flying I will leave you in the dust with my IO360 180 hp RV8!!!captain_john wrote:OK, I will take you to task on those.
+ Faster - Not necessarily
Now, I do agree... build what you wanna fly!
Dan N742DA 76.6 hrs and climbing
-
captain_john
- Sparky
- Posts: 5880
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: KPYM