Checked out RV-8s at OSH

[Jay Honeck]

Oh...my...God.

Made the mistake of sitting in one. Everything feels...right. What an awesome plane. It's a personal fighter plane that burns less gas, flies higher and farther, MUCH faster, is aerobatic, has gobs of shoulder room, unbelievable performance, and -- best of all -- adjustable rudder pedals so that Mary can fly it, too. (We learned that most RV-6s do not have adjustable rudders, which means that for her to sit close enough to reach the pedals she must basically sit atop the stick. Ain't no "flaring" to land happening that way.)

It is superior to Atlas in all measurable ways, except one -- it only carries 2 people. I am now in the "must have" stage. This is dangerous.

Sadly, we can't sell Atlas for another few years, since our daughter will be living with us until then, and she isn't thrilled about being strapped under the wing. I'm not going down the "multiple airplane" rabbit hole again, although partnering on one might be possible.

*sigh* I'm just going to have to wait. In the meantime, I will be edumacating myself on all things RV.

 

[PilotAlan]

Yes. My next plane will be either a Bo or an RV8.
I have to have Wendy sit in one. That will be the deciding factor. There's no way to know if she will love or hate tandem seating until she tries it.

So, if tandem: RV8. If not: Bo with an IO-520 or 550.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

how high, how fast?
2 people and how much bags in #s?
real numbers, not advertised specs.
What is a decent used one going for?
I presume good pavement only.
which engine?
2 people range?

 

[Jay Honeck]

how high, how fast?
2 people and how much bags in #s?
real numbers, not advertised specs.
What is a decent used one going for?
I presume good pavement only.
which engine?
2 people range?

All you seek is here: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-8spe.htm

Apparently (unlike Piper/Cessna/Beech/Cirrus/etc.) these numbers are pretty close to accurate, with minor variations depending on builder modifications.

With an RV-8, grass strips are no problem. The RV-8A (tricycle version) seems to have the stoutest nose gear of all the RVs, so I wouldn't hesitate to take it into a short grass strip.

Check out the performance here: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-8per.htm

Take-off distance: 250 feet! There aren't many strips you couldn't get into, with performance like that.

RV-8s are the most desirable of the 2-place-tandem RV aircraft, and they're also pretty new, so there aren't a ton of them available. They seem to be going for anywhere from $60K - $110K, although methinks the guys asking over $80K are trying to get out what they put in -- and that NEVER works in airplanes.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Yes. My next plane will be either a Bo or an RV8.
I have to have Wendy sit in one. That will be the deciding factor. There's no way to know if she will love or hate tandem seating until she tries it.

So, if tandem: RV8. If not: Bo with an IO-520 or 550.

Yeah, Mary had doubts about the tandem seating. We were looking at the RV-6s for just that reason, but the -6's non-adjustable rudder pedals pushed her over to the RV-8.

It's like a told her -- sure we can't hold hands while flying the -8, but she can still reach over the panel and doink me in the back of the head. (Or vice versa.) That's good enough, after being together for 35 years...

 

[tonycondon]

interestingly a well built RV is about the only homebuilt i've ever seen that can actually sell for at least the cost of materials. For a while when the economy was much better there were guys who were actually building them for a profit, although still probably not really making a lot of money for their time involved. Still, a testament to how nice the airplanes are.

 

[Geico266]

how high, how fast?
2 people and how much bags in #s?
real numbers, not advertised specs.
What is a decent used one going for?
I presume good pavement only.
which engine?
2 people range?

The published numbers Vans puts out are very accurate.

I cannot believe you guys are still buying and flying old iron. Time to get into the 21st century!

 

[Geico266]

RV-8s are the most desirable of the 2-place-tandem RV aircraft, and they're also pretty new, so there aren't a ton of them available. They seem to be going for anywhere from $60K - $110K, although methinks the guys asking over $80K are trying to get out what they put in -- and that NEVER works in airplanes.

While the market is down, there are still planes still being sold for much more than they were built for. I know of an RV-12 that just sold for $120K. There are compaines that build them and sell them for a profit all the time.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Very nice airplanes
I wish they could hold more and go fast!

 

[kyleb]

All you seek is here: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-8spe.htm

Apparently (unlike Piper/Cessna/Beech/Cirrus/etc.) these numbers are pretty close to accurate, with minor variations depending on builder modifications.

With an RV-8, grass strips are no problem. The RV-8A (tricycle version) seems to have the stoutest nose gear of all the RVs, so I wouldn't hesitate to take it into a short grass strip.

Check out the performance here: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-8per.htm

Take-off distance: 250 feet! There aren't many strips you couldn't get into, with performance like that.

RV-8s are the most desirable of the 2-place-tandem RV aircraft, and they're also pretty new, so there aren't a ton of them available. They seem to be going for anywhere from $60K - $110K, although methinks the guys asking over $80K are trying to get out what they put in -- and that NEVER works in airplanes.

A couple of comments:

- The -8 nose gear is identical to the -7 nose gear and shouldn't be abused. The wee little tire/wheel combination isn't particularly tolerant of dips and chuckholes. The gear leg isn't tolerant of hamfisted pilots who land on the nosegear. More than a few folks have found this out the hard way.

- The 250' takeoff performance is real and repeatable as are the other airplane dependant spec's. However, you (the pilot) need to be very, very, very good to hit the landing distance numbers. It isn't an airplane thing -the airplane is capable, but the 99% of pilots aren't. For real people, figure 1,000' with good approaches as the minimum strip length. I routinely get down and stop in that distance, but a bounce or bobble due to turbulence (or having to compensate for a gusty crosswind) and 1,000' goes by pretty fast.

 

[denverpilot]

At 410 lbs of useful load with full fuel, Karen and I would put one over-gross. We could both go on huge diets and maybe make it, but I'd rather eat PoA jambalaya with Grant and Leslie!

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I cannot believe you guys are still buying and flying old iron. Time to get into the 21st century!

Yeah, but park your RV next to my Cessna 195, and which plane will get the most attention?

 

[Tom-D]

What is the expected build time for the RV 6? Cost?

 

[kyleb]

Yeah, but park your RV next to my Cessna 195, and which plane will get the most attention?

No doubt the 195 exudes class and and old money feel. The RV is more of a fun airplane. I'd like to have one of each, but a radial engined big, 60 year old airplane scares the pants off of me from a maintenance perspective.

A question for you, though... On I-195 at Oshkosh, I saw a particular 195 which had an oblong fold out hatch at the pilot's shoulder. It caught my eye - I thought "I've seen a bunch of 195's, can't belive I didn't notice that before." Then I looked and none of the other aircraft had that hatch.

Was that a factory mod, an STC, or what?

Thanks,

Kyle

 

[kyleb]

What is the expected build time for the RV 6? Cost?

The RV-4 and RV-6 are 2,000 hour projects for someone who's efficient. The RV-7, 8, and 9's take a little less time. The RV-10 takes more because it is a bigger airframe. The RV-12 takes ~750 hours because it is a much simpler kit.

A good scrounger could build a fairly basic -4 or -6 for under $40k if s/he watched TAP and other sources for "deals", had cash in hand, painted the airplane himself, etc. The -6 is sort of a non-starter in that you can't buy a new tail kit for it anymore - it has been replaced by the prepunched - 7.

Van's has a price estimator, and will tell you that you can build a -7,-8, or -9 for anywhere from $50k and up depending on your choices. As with everything in aviation, there is no limit to how much you can spend. I suspect most current builders who go with a new engine, constant speed prop, fancy panel (glass displays, Garmin 430W or better, etc.) spend $80k or more.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

A question for you, though... On I-195 at Oshkosh, I saw a particular 195 which had an oblong fold out hatch at the pilot's shoulder. It caught my eye - I thought "I've seen a bunch of 195's, can't belive I didn't notice that before." Then I looked and none of the other aircraft had that hatch.

Was that a factory mod, an STC, or what?

Thanks,

Kyle

It's a sea plane door. Factory option. I believe all the planes sent to the military had them but I can't really say that with certainty. It would be nice to have a second way out of the plane if the unthinkable happens.

 

[Jay Honeck]

What is the expected build time for the RV 6? Cost?

Too freaking long.

I've got a good buddy who is working on an RV-10. By the time he finishes it, he won't be able to afford the avgas to fill it. His kids were babies when he got the first kit, and if it's done before they are out of high school, I will be amazed.

Bottom line is that anyone with family or business obligations is going to have a helluva time building a plane. It requires a long-term, consistent, every-day effort that is patently impossible for most of us.

Which is why I will be looking for an "already-built" RV-8(A), when the time comes.

 

[tonycondon]

on the other side of the spectrum i know a guy who has built a 7A and a -10. i think both were less than 2 years from arrival of the first part to flying. a lot depends on if you have the cash on hand and how much free time you have.

 

[kyleb]

on the other side of the spectrum i know a guy who has built a 7A and a -10. i think both were less than 2 years from arrival of the first part to flying. a lot depends on if you have the cash on hand and how much free time you have.

Or how much free time you make. When I was building my -6, there weren't as many internet distractions as today. Cut out the obsessive surfing and I'd have time to build another one despite that fact that I'm married now, with a son, two dogs, and a 50 year old house.

 

[Dean]

The RV8 is my pick out of all the RV line-up, with the Rv10 being #2. Once you go tandem seating its hard to go back to side by side. Here lately I have seen a few RV 10's on barnstormers at RV 8 prices.

 

[Baron2PG]

The problem with buying a used homebuilt is "how do you really know" if it was put together correctly. I'm sure the VANS product is great if properly assembled, with the proper torques, and the proper rated hardware, and the proper alignment, etc.

This "unknown" factor has prevented me from purchasing one.

 

[CJones]

The RV8 is my pick out of all the RV line-up, with the Rv10 being #2. Once you go tandem seating its hard to go back to side by side. Here lately I have seen a few RV 10's on barnstormers at RV 8 prices.

The -8 was our first choice when we started building, but my mom put the kabosh to staring at the back of my dad's head on long trips very early in the process.

I do like the looks of the -8, and do remember having more shoulder room in it than when someone is in the other seat of the -7A. The only thing about having side-by-side is if you really want to stretch, you're limited by personal space, and in the -8, you're limited by physical structure.

 

[CJones]

The problem with buying a used homebuilt is "how do you really know" if it was put together correctly. I'm sure the VANS product is great if properly assembled, with the proper torques, and the proper rated hardware, and the proper alignment, etc.

This "unknown" factor has prevented me from purchasing one.

That can be said about any airplane, really. Sure, there are a few more written rules about how a certified plane should be maintained, but all you can really go on is the hope that the A&P that has signed off on maintenance of the plane has followed those written directions to the letter.

At least with a homebuilt, the person that built it is trusting their own life (and probably their family's) to how well it is built and maintained.

A thorough pre-buy by someone with knowledge in type/model is just as important as any other airplane purchase.

 

[Steve]

That can be said about any airplane, really. Sure, there are a few more written rules about how a certified plane should be maintained, but all you can really go on is the hope that the A&P that has signed off on maintenance of the plane has followed those written directions to the letter.

At least with a homebuilt, the person that built it is trusting their own life (and probably their family's) to how well it is built and maintained.

A thorough pre-buy by someone with knowledge in type/model is just as important as any other airplane purchase.

Planes have left the factory/dealer with controls cross-rigged and cotter pins missing...discovered after the crash.

 

[Dean]

The problem with buying a used homebuilt is "how do you really know" if it was put together correctly. I'm sure the VANS product is great if properly assembled, with the proper torques, and the proper rated hardware, and the proper alignment, etc.

This "unknown" factor has prevented me from purchasing one.

I would rather fly a plane built by a man/woman who is going to put himself/herself and family in it, than the guy just collecting a pay check. When buying an experimental you can review the build records and photos, you sure don't get that option from a certified aircraft company.

 

[kyleb]

The problem with buying a used homebuilt is "how do you really know" if it was put together correctly. I'm sure the VANS product is great if properly assembled, with the proper torques, and the proper rated hardware, and the proper alignment, etc.

This "unknown" factor has prevented me from purchasing one.

That is an issue, but a proper pre-purchase by someone who knows these aircraft (actually, you should have the equivalent of an annual done) will identify obvious issues. The key places to look are the fuel system and engine compartment, because that's where it is easy for someone to miss something or get creative. In the end, the RV is more or less a Cherokee from a fuel system and engine perspective.

Airframe construction errors (at least dangerous ones) have been few and far between, but the empennage attachment and rear spar attachment are obvious points to inspect, just because those areas are subject to builder variation.

 

[wanttaja]

I would rather fly a plane built by a man/woman who is going to put himself/herself and family in it, than the guy just collecting a pay check. When buying an experimental you can review the build records and photos, you sure don't get that option from a certified aircraft company.

The trouble is, you really don't know the attitude of the guy who built the airplane. There was one under construction here by a man who had been recently widowed and had lost his medical. He was taking a lot of his frustration and grief out on that project....

The guy building an airplane while collecting a paycheck has a phalanx of quality control backing him up. There's a phalanx of lawyers insisting that quality control be as good as possible to preclude events that trigger lawsuits. If all else fails, if an assembler is making a mistake, earlier examples of the aircraft will exhibit the problem and trigger a fix.

Plus the fact that most of us are very unlikely to buy brand-new production aircraft. The average GA aircraft is about 39 years old; production quality is probably of less importance that quality of the maintenance.

"Homebuilts are built better than production aircraft" is a myth. The accident rate says otherwise.

 

[Steve]

"Homebuilts are built better than production aircraft" is a myth. The accident rate says otherwise.

What percentage of amateur accidents are traced back to construction vs. pilot skill?

Even built properly, many non-factory designs are less forgiving if operated poorly.

 

[wanttaja]

What percentage of amateur accidents are traced back to construction vs. pilot skill?

Even built properly, many non-factory designs are less forgiving if operated poorly.

I took a look at the accident causes over a ten-year period. I compared homebuilts to a "control group" consisting of Cessna 172s and 210s (excluding training accidents). This was done so the control group included a mix of simple and complex aircraft.

I had a category called "Pilot Miscontrol," which covered cases where the accident was due mistakes in the physical control of the airplane (undershoots, stalls, etc.). About 52% of the Control Group accidents were due to pilot miscontrol, compared to only 39% of homebuilt accidents.

However, the median pilot hours for the two groups were quite a bit different...950 for homebuilts, 506 for the control group. I think this was reflected in some of the "Pilot Judgment" categories. Homebuilts had a much lower rate of VFR into IMC and fuel exhaustion accidents, for example.

About 5.5% of homebuilt accidents could be directly attributed to mistakes made during construction, vs. 0.3% for the control group. In addition to the cases directly attributed to errors during construction, homebuilts had a higher rate of accidents due to problems with the engine or fuel system.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[CJones]

About 5.5% of homebuilt accidents could be directly attributed to mistakes made during construction, vs. 0.3% for the control group. In addition to the cases directly attributed to errors during construction, homebuilts had a higher rate of accidents due to problems with the engine or fuel system.

Ron Wanttaja

JOOC, what percentage of the 5.5% of homebuilt accidents that could be attributed to mistakes made during construction occurred in the first 50-100hrs of operation of the aircraft?

 

[Tom-D]

The RV-4 and RV-6 are 2,000 hour projects for someone who's efficient. The RV-7, 8, and 9's take a little less time. The RV-10 takes more because it is a bigger airframe. The RV-12 takes ~750 hours because it is a much simpler kit.

A good scrounger could build a fairly basic -4 or -6 for under $40k if s/he watched TAP and other sources for "deals", had cash in hand, painted the airplane himself, etc. The -6 is sort of a non-starter in that you can't buy a new tail kit for it anymore - it has been replaced by the prepunched - 7.

Van's has a price estimator, and will tell you that you can build a -7,-8, or -9 for anywhere from $50k and up depending on your choices. As with everything in aviation, there is no limit to how much you can spend. I suspect most current builders who go with a new engine, constant speed prop, fancy panel (glass displays, Garmin 430W or better, etc.) spend $80k or more.

At a couple hours per night, that's 1000 nights, 1000/365= 2.7 years.

and that is a guess. It's probably much longer.

 

[zaitcev]

JOOC, what percentage of the 5.5% of homebuilt accidents that could be attributed to mistakes made during construction occurred in the first 50-100hrs of operation of the aircraft?

Look at it from the perspective of FlyBaby. Improper rigging, using of solid rods, all that could lay in wait for far more than 100 hours and then kill. Also, you switched the tracks away from an important point that Ron raised: what about the things that may bording on harmless until someone else flies the airplane (e.g. N555JD)? There was nothing wrong with that airplane except the builder could reach the fuel switch and the new owner could not (without spinning it).

 

[wanttaja]

JOOC, what percentage of the 5.5% of homebuilt accidents that could be attributed to mistakes made during construction occurred in the first 50-100hrs of operation of the aircraft?

Don't have, offhand, the rate for 50-100 hours, but here's a breakdown for first flight/test period/rest of time from one of my EAA presentations:

There's actually a "spike" in the accident rate in the 40-60 hour zone. This is due partially to problems associated with cross-country flight, but there is a rise in mechanical problems in this period.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[steingar]

Ron, what are the "N" numbers like on those graphs? Percentages can be very deceiving.

 

[wanttaja]

Ron, what are the "N" numbers like on those graphs? Percentages can be very deceiving.

Total number of homebuilt accidents: 2111
First flight accidents: 98
Test period: 311 (includes first-flight accidents)
40-70 hours: 185
Cessna 172/210 Accidents (excluding training): 1372

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Anthony]

At a couple hours per night, that's 1000 nights, 1000/365= 2.7 years.

and that is a guess. It's probably much longer.

Anecdotally, it seems to be MUCH, much longer. There are many stories about guys taking 9 years or more to build the plane, then kill themselves in the first 9 minutes of flight. I knew a guy when I was based at KFTG that built an RV-8 tail dragger. Beautiful plane. The problem is the guy ended up being scared of it, as it was a taildragger. He never flew the damn thing.

My problem is spending that much time building anything. I just don't have it. If you just like to build, that's one thing, but if you want to fly and/or have a life outside of your garage, it's difficult.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I knew a guy when I was based at KFTG that built an RV-8 tail dragger. Beautiful plane. The problem is the guy ended up being scared of it, as it was a taildragger. He never flew the damn thing.

I know a guy who spent years scratch-building (not a kit) a 1930s replica biplane. It turned out beautifully, and won several awards.

After he flew it 50 hours or so, he confided to me that it scared the hell out of him. I had never seen him that way before (this was a guy who radiated self confidence) and it really worried me.

On the VERY NEXT FLIGHT he crashed it. The header tank blew gas all over him, burning him over 60% of his body. Luckily, (unlike Amanda Franklin) he was able to instantly get out and roll in the grass, extinguishing the fire.

Although he survived, he has never flown again, and is a changed man.

Building and flying an aircraft of your own design is exponentially harder than building/flying one you build from a kit. Although I would definitely consider buying a home-built RV-8, there is no way I would consider buying a plans- or scratch- built aircraft.

 

[kyleb]

I know a guy who built an RV-6 in about 6.5 years, mostly working evenings during the winter so he could date a bunch of single women on the weekends and occasional weeknight and so he could play golf, tennis, hike, fly AND date during the months of the year when the weather and daylight were more supportive of daylight activities.

That guy has about 750 hours on his RV-6 and hasn't killed himself or scared himself yet. He's been from Minneapolis to Miami and from San Antonio to the Outer Banks in the RV-6.

On the other hand, I know two guys who were solo students and rolled up C-172's in a ball. I don't think they enjoyed their experiences. ;-)

 

[wanttaja]

I know a guy who spent years scratch-building (not a kit) a 1930s replica biplane. It turned out beautifully, and won several awards.

After he flew it 50 hours or so, he confided to me that it scared the hell out of him. I had never seen him that way before (this was a guy who radiated self confidence) and it really worried me.

I remember the airplane, Jay.

What *was* the guy's concern? Was it too hard to handle, or was he worried about the auto conversion?

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Jay Honeck]

I remember the airplane, Jay.

What *was* the guy's concern? Was it too hard to handle, or was he worried about the auto conversion?

Ron Wanttaja

The plane was apparently a real handfull to land, and the auto conversion was giving him fits.

It was a last-second tweak to the carb that caused the crash. apparently. He was having trouble getting the Chevy conversion to run smoothly at all RPMs, and shortly before that flight he adjusted something that caused the engine to quit making power at about 200 feet.

The attempted return to the runway did not go well. Nonetheless, he made it back to airport property before pancaking it in.

Had the header tank not burst all over the hot engine, he would have walked away with nothing but a big bump on the noggin. Luckily, that bump didn't knock him out, or he wouldn't be with us today. Nonetheless, it was a horrific crash and injury, and we were all thankful (and, frankly, amazed) when he survived.

According to the doctors, he had a less than 10% of surviving those kinds of burns at his age. He really beat the odds, but at an awful price.