RV-8

Share ideas on building aircraft.

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

User avatar
Adam Oke
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1317
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:30 am
Location: London, Ontario

RV-8

Post by Adam Oke »

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 4 Bar Switch Flicker and Flap Operator--
angry inch
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: the wet coast

Re: RV-8

Post by angry inch »

What engine? & Ballpark finish cost?? Timeline?

I'd love to complete a Van's kit..
---------- ADS -----------
 
l_reason
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:37 am

Re: RV-8

Post by l_reason »

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: 1317
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:30 am
Location: London, Ontario

Re: RV-8

Post by Adam Oke »

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 4 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

Post by Strega »

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: 288
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:33 pm

Re: RV-8

Post by swervin »

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: 1317
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:30 am
Location: London, Ontario

Re: RV-8

Post by Adam Oke »

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 4 Bar Switch Flicker and Flap Operator--
User avatar
Adam Oke
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1317
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:30 am
Location: London, Ontario

Re: RV-8

Post by Adam Oke »

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 4 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

Post by Strega »

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

Post by balfour »

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: 1317
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:30 am
Location: London, Ontario

Re: RV-8

Post by Adam Oke »

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 4 Bar Switch Flicker and Flap Operator--
AdamB
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:37 pm

Re: RV-8

Post by AdamB »

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

Post by Strega »

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

Post by ottawa,kan »

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

Post by AEROBAT »

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

Post by AEROBAT »

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

Post by AEROBAT »

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

Post by mashowski »

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: 370
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Ontario
Contact:

Re: RV-8

Post by black hole »

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 -----------
 
ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 6309
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: RV-8

Post by ahramin »

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 -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Homebuilders”