It all boils down to buying a Europa if you fit in 
and travel at 163 KTAS @FL160 using just 25 l/h carfuel 
(XS Trigear with Rotax 914)
europaxs wrote:
It all boils down to buying a Europa if you fit in and travel at 163 KTAS @FL160 using just 25 l/h carfuel (XS Trigear with Rotax 914)
Nice numbers! I really enjoy my RV-8 and my IO-360 but it’s pretty thirsty. Recent flight at 14.5k ft showed about 32 liters/hour with a TAS of around 175 ktas.
@eurogaguest1980 I believe I detect irony? Comparison of the two speeds and fuel flows indicates that the RV-8 is almost exactly comparable in fuel efficiency with the turbocharged Europa, even when flying at 1500 feet lower altitude – power and therefore fuel flow naturally increases as the cube of speed. The difference between them is that the Europa has more friendly side-by-side seating while the RV is aerobatic, significantly faster at low altitude and has higher initial climb rate. The Europa is relying on the benefits of the turbo for performance and efficiency at high altitude.
Also it’s nosewheel vs. taildragger, carburetor vs. Fuel injection. The Europa Monowheel is 8-10 kt faster than the Trigear. I also think, that the IO Lyco needs 100LL. And you can take off the wings of the Europa and store it at home in an enclosed trailer (which I do).
That said, the RV8 is without doubt a fantastic aeroplane. Not really comparable the two…
I didn’t address the landing gear difference because the tri-gear is RV-8 is only 1.7 knots slower than the tailwheel version and also BTW has equally good maneuverability on the ground. It makes one wonder why the tailwheel version is more popular. Dirt field capability is one issue but I think for most builders the actual reason is that it looks better.
Silvaire wrote:
Dirt field capability is one issue but I think for most builders the actual reason is that it looks better.
A combination of those two for me. I’m told that the tricycle RVs, when unmodified, have something of a reputation for the nose gear collapsing if not restricted to smooth tarmac and handled very gently.
Graham wrote:
tricycle RVs, when unmodified, have something of a reputation for the nose gear collapsing
Well, that would only concern the tricycle A versions of the -6, -7, -8, and -9. The -12 seems less affected… in all cases, bouncing wheelbarrow impacts never helped any nose dragging airplane…
The -10 is de facto a nosedragger, and the -14A has the same beefy nose gear design, those should be less likely to suffer mishandling…
