RV-8

Share ideas on building aircraft.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Message
Author
User avatar
Adam Oke
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:30 am
Location: London, Ontario

RV-8

#1 Post by Adam Oke » Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:03 pm

I am a proud owner of the RV-8 preview plans!

"Total Performance" as the RV quote goes is mainly the reason why I chose the idea of an RV-8. Some things I require out of my future first plane:
  • - Taildragger
    - Tandem Seating
    - Control Stick
    - XC capable
    - Mild Aerobatics
    - Enough STOL to get in and out of short grass strips
    - Easy enough for a first time builder
    - Proven design
    - Minimal parts fabrication
    - Minimal Jigs
    - Decent Price
Van's RV-8 fits all of the above. The RV-8 is now all "match holed" and pre drilled. No jigs required! Thus when the holes line up, the aircraft/part you are working on will be square and true. There are tons of builder and flying RV's that communication between the builder groups is frequent and common.

I have plenty of time to finish, so this will be a 'slow build' and not a Quick Build Kit.
---------- ADS -----------
  
--Air to Ground Chemical Transfer Technician turned 3 Bar Switch Flicker and Flap Operator--

angry inch
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: the wet coast

Re: RV-8

#2 Post by angry inch » Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:12 pm

What engine? & Ballpark finish cost?? Timeline?

I'd love to complete a Van's kit..
---------- ADS -----------
  

l_reason
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:37 am

Re: RV-8

#3 Post by l_reason » Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:49 am

Adam, you know I'm coming with you on your first flight. I'll have to make sure your doing it right. :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Adam Oke
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:30 am
Location: London, Ontario

Re: RV-8

#4 Post by Adam Oke » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:47 pm

Ball park time will be min. one kit per year. I can see this being a 6+ year project just to budget it and try not to spend too much all at once! Projected cost $60+ ... it's always more than you estimate I hear. I've already spent a wackload just getting started! You can quite easily get carried way with tools.

Engine dreams will be an injected lycoming either the 320 or 360. If I can find an IO-360 down the line for a decent price, maybe high time and overhaul it, then I would love the 200hp! Clearly with a constant speed prop out front. I like the steam gauges too. Not a fan of the computer screens. There are better things to look at when flying ... maybe outside might be a good start? :wink:

I_reason, absolutely. You're first inline to get on the insurance too!

I've got a couple practice kits out of the way so far, and I'm pretty impressed with the way things turned out. Finished up a Van's tool box practice kit, and a practice RV-9 aileron. Once I sort out where I'll be at for 2009 season I will take the plunge to order, and start buckin' rivets on the tail kit.
---------- ADS -----------
  
--Air to Ground Chemical Transfer Technician turned 3 Bar Switch Flicker and Flap Operator--

User avatar
Strega
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:44 am
Location: NWO

Re: RV-8

#5 Post by Strega » Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:20 pm

Clearly with a constant speed prop out front
Why?

Ive flown both CS and FP,, and a good FP prop is better.. Lighter, simpler. and FASTER!

by good FP I mean CATTO and the likes...
---------- ADS -----------
  
Rule books are paper - they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
— Ernest K. Gann, 'Fate is the Hunter.

swervin
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:33 pm

Re: RV-8

#6 Post by swervin » Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:36 am

Try finding yourself a Left turning lycoming out of a Seneca or something similar. They'll be identified by the LIO designation. I believe they are around half the price of the clockwise rotating engine. For some reason people are scared of flying behind an engine that turns the "wrong" way :) .
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Adam Oke
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:30 am
Location: London, Ontario

Re: RV-8

#7 Post by Adam Oke » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:31 pm

Strega wrote:
Clearly with a constant speed prop out front
Why?

Ive flown both CS and FP,, and a good FP prop is better.. Lighter, simpler. and FASTER!

by good FP I mean CATTO and the likes...
That is an interesting statement Strega. I'm not saying your wrong by any means. I would hate to answer with a question .... but can you back up your response? Your thoughts are kind of backwards to what I have been taught. My understanding is that a constant speed propeller is more beneficial because changing the blade pitch allows you to take full advantage of engine power at various stages of flight. As opposed to a FP prop which is fixed to perform best at only one stage. This does not allow one to take full advantage of the engine and what it produces.

Also comparing CS vs FP, I'm assuming you've flown them on the same type of aircraft in order to have a fair comparison?
---------- ADS -----------
  
--Air to Ground Chemical Transfer Technician turned 3 Bar Switch Flicker and Flap Operator--

User avatar
Adam Oke
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:30 am
Location: London, Ontario

Re: RV-8

#8 Post by Adam Oke » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:33 pm

swervin wrote:Try finding yourself a Left turning lycoming out of a Seneca or something similar. They'll be identified by the LIO designation. I believe they are around half the price of the clockwise rotating engine. For some reason people are scared of flying behind an engine that turns the "wrong" way :) .
What a neat idea! I had never thought about that. Likely would hurt on re-sale though in the long haul.
---------- ADS -----------
  
--Air to Ground Chemical Transfer Technician turned 3 Bar Switch Flicker and Flap Operator--

User avatar
Strega
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:44 am
Location: NWO

Re: RV-8

#9 Post by Strega » Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:33 pm

Adam,,

When you have a plane as the RV-8 with TONS of excess power, you can size a fixed pitch prop for high cruise e, the trade off is reduced take off performance, but as mentioned, with a 200hp engine, the rv will easily get airborne in a reasonable time with a "cruise" fixed pitch.

you will always be able to make a prop more efficent by designing it for ONE rpm/torqe/airspeed than trying to to it all (as done by a CS prop)

not to mention the CS prop and govener adds like 50 lbs to the aircraft, and is just more crap to break.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Rule books are paper - they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
— Ernest K. Gann, 'Fate is the Hunter.

balfour
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:42 pm

Re: RV-8

#10 Post by balfour » Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:32 pm

Strega wrote:Adam,,

When you have a plane as the RV-8 with TONS of excess power, you can size a fixed pitch prop for high cruise e, the trade off is reduced take off performance, but as mentioned, with a 200hp engine, the rv will easily get airborne in a reasonable time with a "cruise" fixed pitch.

you will always be able to make a prop more efficent by designing it for ONE rpm/torqe/airspeed than trying to to it all (as done by a CS prop)

not to mention the CS prop and govener adds like 50 lbs to the aircraft, and is just more crap to break.

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression that this moron cut's and paste's other peoples posts from other web-sites?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Adam Oke
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:30 am
Location: London, Ontario

Re: RV-8

#11 Post by Adam Oke » Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:18 pm

I'm still confused as to how one "gear" vs. multiple "gears" is more beneficial. Maybe this should be opened up for discussion in a new thread. CF vs FP.

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=49881
---------- ADS -----------
  
--Air to Ground Chemical Transfer Technician turned 3 Bar Switch Flicker and Flap Operator--

AdamB
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:37 pm

Re: RV-8

#12 Post by AdamB » Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:49 am

Speaking of propellers ... you should take a look at this : http://www.aeromatic.com/

If i was building a kit I'd strongly consider it. Flew an old Bellanca with one of 'em and was very impressed...
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Strega
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:44 am
Location: NWO

Re: RV-8

#13 Post by Strega » Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:54 pm

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression that this moron cut's and paste's other peoples posts from other web-sites?

Its just you.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Rule books are paper - they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
— Ernest K. Gann, 'Fate is the Hunter.

ottawa,kan
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 427
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:14 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: RV-8

#14 Post by ottawa,kan » Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:00 pm

I've got a good friend in our EAA group building an RV ( 6 I think?), 15 year plan. He's going constant speed even though it weighs more. But he HATES Lycoming fuel injection, insists that a carb is the only way to go. Any thoughts on that???
---------- ADS -----------
  

AEROBAT
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:27 am

Re: RV-8

#15 Post by AEROBAT » Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:07 pm

An O-360 is 180 horse and around 11 to 12 GPH. The IO-360 is 200 horse and 10 GPH. Plus if you have a Christian Oil system you can fly upside down with the fuel injection! :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
  

AEROBAT
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:27 am

Re: RV-8

#16 Post by AEROBAT » Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:11 pm

Strega wrote:
Clearly with a constant speed prop out front
Why?

Ive flown both CS and FP,, and a good FP prop is better.. Lighter, simpler. and FASTER!

by good FP I mean CATTO and the likes...
The constant speed is nice if you are doing acro, otherwise you are right the fixed pitch is quite often faster.
---------- ADS -----------
  

AEROBAT
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:27 am

Re: RV-8

#17 Post by AEROBAT » Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:20 pm

Adam Oke wrote:
swervin wrote:Try finding yourself a Left turning lycoming out of a Seneca or something similar. They'll be identified by the LIO designation. I believe they are around half the price of the clockwise rotating engine. For some reason people are scared of flying behind an engine that turns the "wrong" way :) .
What a neat idea! I had never thought about that. Likely would hurt on re-sale though in the long haul.
You may need to build a custom motor mount. I know the RV7 is offset for P-factor to suite a clock wise rotating engine.
---------- ADS -----------
  

mashowski
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 1:42 pm

Re: RV-8

#18 Post by mashowski » Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:21 pm

Adam,
Constant speed will give you more acceleration for takeoff because the engine runs at 2700 rpm versus 2300 for the fixed pitch. Constant speed will give you more efficient cruise because you can run at low rpm and full throttle.
Those are the advantages, but I am in the Strega camp. I don't like the weight and expense of the CS, and just wait till you get the bill for your first prop overhaul. Those extra pounds on the nose subtract from useful load and a heavy plane burns more fuel. An airplane like the RV with a light wood or composite FP prop on the nose will handle much nicer, too.
Larry
---------- ADS -----------
  

black hole
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Ontario
Contact:

Re: RV-8

#19 Post by black hole » Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:08 pm

I'd go for the fixed pitch prop. At best the CS is a poor compromise. The best prop for your plane is the one that; at the altitude you fly at most will give you max rated RPM at full throttle. Also having a manifold pressure gauge lets you work out power settings and fuel flow.

BH
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mapleflt
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: RV-8

#20 Post by Mapleflt » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:09 pm

The L designated engine idea is fantastic idea as a cost saving measure. It will give your project a unique character that to my way of thinking may infact help with resale. The possible custom engine mount is a good point to remember but once solved no longer a factor. Just imagine the laughs when someone offers to "hand prop" your shinny new toy.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5499
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: RV-8

#21 Post by ahramin » Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:37 pm

Anyone know the price difference between fuel injected and carburated on similar engines? Btw anyone who says carburettors are better should give their heads a shake. But yes, Lycoming hot starts are a bitch.

As for constant speed props, it is simply a matter of money. They are much better, and they cost much more.

The L engine is a great money saving idea, but will definitely affect resell value negatively. However, you are never going to get the money you put into a homebuilt back anyway, so no point worrying.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mapleflt
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: RV-8

#22 Post by Mapleflt » Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:22 am

I guess it's all about want vs need. I "want" to get my project in to the air as soon as possible and I "need" to do it in the most cost effective way possible. As pointed out above its harder for a homebuilt to maintain value but the gap between type certified aircraft and flight permit aircraft was closed a further when owner maintenance came into being. I have seen some absolutely beautiful homebuilts the value of which was undeniable. Conversely some equally horrorable factory aircraft that have been reduced to near zero through neglict and pencil whipped annuals. As for the left engine on a homebuilt, if installed well and maintained correctly I still think the impact on marketability and resale value should not be an issue. One might try to claim it has an effect when haggling over a final deal. However if all the standard engine health indicators are within tolerance why should it matter which way the prop turns, . The quality of the "workmanship" and ongoing "maintenance" will out weight which direction the prop spins. There are lots of beautiful DH Chipmunks out there that swing the "other way" no pun intended.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Jungle Jim
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 6:29 pm

Re: RV-8

#23 Post by Jungle Jim » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:46 am

Adam,

I noticed that one of your requirements was to get in and out of short strips. I find with my Thorp T-18 that has a C/S prop, I am able to land shorter than the fixed pitch guys. The RV 8 will have no problem getting out of short strips but with the high pitch it may not slow down as quickly as a C/S prop when you chop the power. I operate out of a 2000 ft paved strip and consistently have it stopped in 1200-1500 ft. The fixed pitch Thorp guys like to use 2500 ft as their minimum.


Jim
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Adam Oke
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:30 am
Location: London, Ontario

Re: RV-8

#24 Post by Adam Oke » Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:29 am

I think MapleFlap hit the nail on the 'want' vs. 'need'. I think the factor of dollars per performance number should be looked at in detail aswell. Firewall Forward is still many years and many rivets away.

I did (finally) order the tail kit today with the electric trim option. I'm pretty excited to say the least. Earlier this year I was able to buck some rivets on a couple of practice kits that turned out well. Learned a lot on the practice kits, and I have A LOT more to go!
---------- ADS -----------
  
--Air to Ground Chemical Transfer Technician turned 3 Bar Switch Flicker and Flap Operator--

Mapleflt
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: RV-8

#25 Post by Mapleflt » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:34 pm

I would keep a look out for an rebuildable engine deal, if one pops up grab it. I know of two projects that stalled towards the end while trying to save enough scratch for an engine. It could be a nice little distraction to tinker at a engine project when you need a break from bucking rivets. Keep us updated, oh by the way your electronic logbook works GREAT.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Homebuilders”