4 place experimentals

[German guy]

We have been building a RV-10, which is a awesome flying machine: Building a RV-10 is however a tedious, often frustrating, process and it is extremely tempting to take shortcuts and / or to ignore oopsies. I therefore recommend to get a VERY thorough pre-buy inspection, when buying a used one.

 

[edo2000]

I've asked Vans - they are not aware of any way to do that. They say you would loose the canopy. On the Tiger the canopy slides forward and closes itself as you accelerate.

I agree, one thing I really miss after selling the Tiger is shooting pictures with the canopy open. My RV-9 has a sliding canopy (like the Tiger) but Van's warns against ever flying with it open. You can clean and polish the plexiglas all you want, you still take crappy pictures shooting through it.

 

[unsafervguy]

Don't play coy. The subtext is that an RV10 is inferior to an archer because "potato". Mind you I own a 74' PA28R-200 and I'm saying this. Identical cabin volumetrics to all post-stretch 28 variants, and if the opportunity arose to trade to an RV-10 for the cost of half the baggage volume, I'd do it so fast, my remaining receding hairline would disappear to the history books. I have zero qualms conceding the RV10 is in every way but one, a superior airplane to my Arrow, and any Archer, every day and twice on sunday.

What's the one metric a PA28 is superior to an RV 10? Acquisition Cost. I can buy the snot out of my PA28 over and over, for the price of an RV 10, and get to where Im going with my family onboard. And God bless for that. If an RV10 was the entry point to be able to participate in this avocation as a family, I would instead be bored out of my skull in some lake with the rest of the fake-breast-wife, 60K/yr millionaires. Getting skin cancer and bobbing around some tacky wakeboat with oversized speakers looking up at the sky wondering why I didn't go to dental school. This is where the EXAB segment fails to serve my demographic.

only because there are no 50 year old RV-10's. compare acquisition cost of a new PA-28 vs the cost of a RV-10 i think the RV-10 comes out well ahead except you have to build it....

 

[citizen5000]

The Evolution now has four variants. All based on the same four seat, pressurized all carbon fiber airframe. All models can be equipped with an airframe BRS chute and FIKI. And the Evolution is the only experimental allowed to use the certified Garmin GFC700 AP.

The final build costs vary between $1.5m for the 850hp turboprop, $1.2m for a 750hp turboprop, $1.05m 550hp turboprop and the Lycoming IE2 piston 350hp version for $890k. Speeds range from 330ktas/45gph top end to 245ktas gas version.

 

[kyleb]

The Evolution now has four variants. All based on the same four seat, pressurized all carbon fiber airframe. All models can be equipped with an airframe BRS chute and FIKI. And the Evolution is the only experimental allowed to use the certified Garmin GFC700 AP.

The final build costs vary between $1.5m for the 850hp turboprop, $1.2m for a 750hp turboprop, $1.05m 550hp turboprop and the Lycoming IE2 piston 350hp version for $890k. Speeds range from 330ktas/38gph top end to 245ktas gas version.

The sad thing is that all versions of the Evolution look odd. The window shapes, in particular, bug me.

 

[citizen5000]

The sad thing is that all versions of the Evolution look odd. The window shapes, in particular, bug me.

The design is largely dictated by being an all carbon fiber pressurized plane than can also accomodate the monster 867shp Pratt & Whitney PT6A-140AG engine. The airframe is said to meet Part 23 standards despite not being certified. The rounded hyper sleek look is about squeezing as much speed as possible. Notice the shape of the wing too.

I sat in one at the Reno Air Races last year. I was astounding at how much head and shoulder room there was in it.

 

[kyleb]

The design is largely dictated by being an all carbon fiber pressurized plane than can also accomodate the monster 867shp Pratt & Whitney PT6A-140AG engine. The airframe is said to meet Part 23 standards despite not being certified. The rounded hyper sleek look is about squeezing as much speed as possible. Notice the shape of the wing too.

No doubt it is a well designed airplane. Form follows function. But I still hate the windows. ;-)

 

[donjohnston]

And the Evolution is the only experimental allowed to use the certified Garmin GFC700 AP.

It's experimental. You can put anything in it you want.

 

[coloradobluesky]

I think the Evolution's looks has really good composition artistically speaking. And I am an artist (architect, draw and musician). Admittadly, this is an opinion, and other's are entitled to theirs, but Ive seen one on the ramp and it is stunning, it flows, and it's proportions are right.

I'd love to own one. Small airplane that can fly in the flight levels. Pressurized comfort. Alas, I don't have the budget for that much airplane. I wonder how comfortable the seats are. I like good foam and upright seating.

 

[citizen5000]

It's experimental. You can put anything in it you want.

Garmin does not allow any other experimental except the Evolution to use the certified GFC 700.

 

[Ravioli]

Garmin does not allow any other experimental except the Evolution to use the certified GFC 700.

They can not disallow it, since they are not certifying it. They can require their dealer network not sell and install in a non-certificated plane, but they cannot obstruct someone buying it on the used market and stuffing it in.

There's plenty to be said about the wisdom of sticking something where the manufacturer doesn't want it to be stuck, but that's a different discussion.

 

[GRG55]

Garmin does not allow any other experimental except the Evolution to use the certified GFC 700.

Garmin can prevent their dealers from selling it, but Garmin has no ability to "allow" or "not allow" what anyone does with their personal E-AB. Lycoming has been trying the same thing for years and builders are having no difficulty finding ways around it. Never underestimate human ingenuity in the face of an unenforceable obstacle.

 

[GRG55]

I think the Evolution's looks has really good composition artistically speaking. And I am an artist (architect, draw and musician). Admittadly, this is an opinion, and other's are entitled to theirs, but Ive seen one on the ramp and it is stunning, it flows, and it's proportions are right.

I'd love to own one. Small airplane that can fly in the flight levels. Pressurized comfort. Alas, I don't have the budget for that much airplane. I wonder how comfortable the seats are. I like good foam and upright seating.

Lance Neibauer's pencil has produced some of the most elegant experimental airplanes ever. I was at OSH in 1985 when he brought his O-200 powered prototype airplane to the show. The Glasairs that were all the rage in pre-molded plastic kits at the time looked positively slab-sided alongside it.



The window shapes seem influenced by some of Rutan's experiments with filament wound carbon fibre hulls.

 

[unsafervguy]

the round windows are influenced by the fact that you do not want square corners in a pressure hull, reference the comet for what happens........

 

[citizen5000]

They can not disallow it, since they are not certifying it. They can require their dealer network not sell and install in a non-certificated plane, but they cannot obstruct someone buying it on the used market and stuffing it in.

There's plenty to be said about the wisdom of sticking something where the manufacturer doesn't want it to be stuck, but that's a different discussion.

They can and they do. No warranty. No support. No dice.

 

[donjohnston]

There's a HUGE difference between not offering a warranty or support versus not "allowing" something.

 

[kyleb]

the round windows are influenced by the fact that you do not want square corners in a pressure hull, reference the comet for what happens........

There are tens of thousands of pressurized aircraft with rectangular windows with radiused corners. Certainly, a circle is the most structurally efficient, but, yeesh...

 

[Ravioli]

They can and they do. No warranty. No support. No dice.

Are you asserting that a manufacturer can prevent the sale of their equipment on the used market and keep it from ending up in a Exp aircraft? That's unlikely.

If your point is that it would be an unsupported application I'd agree with you. But warranties, support, and dice are all optional in the Exp realm.

 

[GRG55]

Are you asserting that a manufacturer can prevent the sale of their equipment on the used market and keep it from ending up in a Exp aircraft? That's unlikely.

If your point is that it would be an unsupported application I'd agree with you. But warranties, support, and dice are all optional in the Exp realm.

Personally I think dice are an integral, non-optional part of the Exp realm.

 

[unsafervguy]

There are tens of thousands of pressurized aircraft with rectangular windows with radiused corners. Certainly, a circle is the most structurally efficient, but, yeesh...

you are correct, but look at the stress analysis of it and you will see there are still larger stress concentrations in the radius than around a round or oval window. so if you are starting with a clean sheet of paper and do not have to conform to norms, and construction is easier, why not go that way.

 

[Bill Watson]

We have been building a RV-10, which is a awesome flying machine: Building a RV-10 is however a tedious, often frustrating, process and it is extremely tempting to take shortcuts and / or to ignore oopsies. I therefore recommend to get a VERY thorough pre-buy inspection, when buying a used one.

All good points. I'd add that building is not for everyone.

You also need to have your 'ducks in a row' so to speak; a comfortable building location, the right tools, some remedial training in key areas, enough $$$ to keep the project moving. The week I spent co-building part of the tail was invaluable (no oopsies were accepted), a weekend long composite class covered the worst part of the build. I spent a year building a climate controlled shop, etc.

It was so worth it!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[wsuffa]

Are you asserting that a manufacturer can prevent the sale of their equipment on the used market and keep it from ending up in a Exp aircraft? That's unlikely.

If your point is that it would be an unsupported application I'd agree with you. But warranties, support, and dice are all optional in the Exp realm.

And the USSC decision this week in the HP Toner Cartridge case reinforces the fact that the manufacturer cannot prevent a secondary sale.

I agree that they have no obligation to support, and there would be room for "leasing" the product to the airplane customer, but that would present a whole 'nother set of complications.

 

[Goofy]

To get away from thread creep.....

Just read a good article in Sept. 2016 Flying on the Sling 4. Nice ride. Surprised a Rotax can do the job but, as a 4 seater at tested gross, it goes 124 kts at 6,000' on 6 gph! Probably takes a little while to get there....
They said the cabin is wider than some bonanza.

 

[citizen5000]

Surprised a Rotax can do the job but it goes 124 kts at 6,000' on 6 gph!

The Rotax 912iS fuel injected sports version does a little better in an SLSA. It will cruise at 120ktas (SLSA spec limit) @ 6k at 4.5gph. And if the tanks and fuel system is setup for it can also burn 91E10 Mogas.

 

[denverpilot]

And the USSC decision this week in the HP Toner Cartridge case reinforces the fact that the manufacturer cannot prevent a secondary sale.

As usual in tech, too little, too late. Can't see buying inkjet for anything other than specialized printing these days anyway with the low price of color laser.

And anyone who really needed inkjet bailed away from HP to Epson for their EcoTank tech a long time ago, unless they were still enamored with HP's overpriced printers by then.

 

[GRG55]

As usual in tech, too little, too late. Can't see buying inkjet for anything other than specialized printing these days anyway with the low price of color laser.

And anyone who really needed inkjet bailed away from HP to Epson for their EcoTank tech a long time ago, unless they were still enamored with HP's overpriced printers by then.

Anybody still enamoured with HP anything must be an archeologist dealing with ancient history BC
(Before Carly).

 

[wsuffa]

As usual in tech, too little, too late. Can't see buying inkjet for anything other than specialized printing these days anyway with the low price of color laser.

And anyone who really needed inkjet bailed away from HP to Epson for their EcoTank tech a long time ago, unless they were still enamored with HP's overpriced printers by then.

This was toners, so laser printers, not inkjets.

 

[Heftiger]

That Sling 4 looks nice!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UngaWunga]

To get away from thread creep.....

Just read a good article in Sept. 2016 Flying on the Sling 4. Nice ride. Surprised a Rotax can do the job but, as a 4 seater at tested gross, it goes 124 kts at 6,000' on 6 gph! Probably takes a little while to get there....
They said the cabin is wider than some bonanza.

http://www.airplanefactory.co.za/models/sling4/specs-performance

 

[Gmonnig]

The reason I fly an Arrow is because there is no 4-seater experimental equivalent. That community likes to retort that it's because an Arrow/182 sucks in the first place, which is true but not for the reasons they argue. The reality is that they simply forego the market segment because you can't match the acquisition price of the certified used product, and no one wants to build something as "slow" as an Arrow/182 that's otherwise proliferated in the resale market, let alone resell their EAB version of it at cost. Part 23 rewrite would have bridged the gap in the EAB family cruiser market (at non-housing price points that is), but as you may or may not know, the FAA assassinated the primary non-commercial category with impunity. So we're stuck in certified purgatory at the sub-80K level.

Sure, there are odd duck hen's teeth 4 seater samples that aren't priced at RV-10 levels, but other than that you're stuck with certified. That's the sad state of GA for people who wish to involve their families in flying who don't have SR22 money.

Take a look at the Sling 4! There are lots of them out there worldwide and easy to build complete around $120k. 135ktas, 1000lbs useful and an airframe parachute (for the Cirrus Lovers). I have an hour in the demo plane and it's an amazing aircraft. I own a beastly Comanche 250 but I love the idea of a "new" ultra efficient 135+kts on 5-6gph of MOGAS! You are correct about the Arrow though. Great plane and normally overlooked. Call me crazy but the Turbo Arrow IV is one of the best looking GA aircraft.

 

[steingar]

As usual in tech, too little, too late. Can't see buying inkjet for anything other than specialized printing these days anyway with the low price of color laser.

And anyone who really needed inkjet bailed away from HP to Epson for their EcoTank tech a long time ago, unless they were still enamored with HP's overpriced printers by then.

While it Guatemala I was treated to the sight of an old dot-matrix printer noisily going back and forth. Gotta love the third world.

 

[Datadriver]

The reason I fly an Arrow is because there is no 4-seater experimental equivalent.

I flew an Arrow for 7 years and 600 hours before I ditched it for a Velocity build, which is still years off. My issue with older certified aircraft was low availability. The thing would sit for weeks at a time waiting for the mechanic (multiple shops) to be able to get to it. Maybe it was mission-ready 60% of the time over those years. In the EAB world most of that will be on the repairman. Hope this works out for me. LOL

Loved the P28 when it worked...

 

[hindsight2020]

I flew an Arrow for 7 years and 600 hours before I ditched it for a Velocity build, which is still years off. My issue with older certified aircraft was low availability. The thing would sit for weeks at a time waiting for the mechanic (multiple shops) to be able to get to it. Maybe it was mission-ready 60% of the time over those years. In the EAB world most of that will be on the repairman. Hope this works out for me. LOL

Loved the P28 when it worked...

60% dispatch rate? That hasnt been my experience with my arrow. my old warrior had even better dispatch rate (since I never had to replace a gear powerpack on that one) . I can count in one hand the amount of times my airplane needed to get on a mechanics schedule for AOG repair mx, not including the yearly annuals. Not per year, but for the entire 4 years ive owned it. Gear powerpack, hole in the wing, flat tire in the hangar. In 4 years.

Like I profiled on here last year, the only time my arrow sat for a long time was when someone dropped a friggin toolbox on the wing and tore a hole in it. Waited months for a rear spar. I suspect if someone tore a hole through your velocity youd be SOL for at least as long.

I'm not an arrow zealot, I wish I had a faster airplane, but spade is a spade. The thing has not left me stranded off station once in 4 years. The reason I own an arrow and not a comanche or 182rg is precisely this maintenance advantage. Owning a dakota, pathfinder or fixed gear PA32 would be like clubbing baby seals on the dispatch rate. I don't doubt that experimentals provide me the allowance of getting in there and doing it myself, but for someone like me who isn't gonna do major wrenching on the thing anyways, I don't see experimentals as inherently more dispatch capable than a pa28\32.

Good luck with build. Velocities are speed demons. I wish I built. But i dont. to quote dos gringos. "..cuz I'm a piiiiilot!"

 

[Anthony]

I've asked Vans - they are not aware of any way to do that. They say you would loose the canopy. On the Tiger the canopy slides forward and closes itself as you accelerate.

Yes, if the canopy is at the little ------> indicator line. If the canopy is too far back it will go all the way back in flight if you don't catch it. Not a good place to be.

 

[steingar]

I am actually about to switch airports due to the availability of mechanical services. I'm not an A&P and haven't time to become one. The lack of services at my home field has already driven down my own dispatchability, with previously has been well over 90%.

 

[Datadriver]

I am actually about to switch airports due to the availability of mechanical services. I'm not an A&P and haven't time to become one. The lack of services at my home field has already driven down my own dispatchability, with previously has been well over 90%.

Yeah, part of the problem here in Central Texas was that the shops also serviced jets, and made lots more $ on them than us prop jobs. They were honest with us about it - but the reality was if a jet rolled in we were rolled out and had to wait our turn. I

 

[easik]

The sling 4 is a respectable option if fitted with the new rotax 915. I flew one back in CA Although it will probably cost you close to $200K

 

[steingar]

Can't figure out the big deal with this Sling 4. Sorry, its slower in every way than my Mooney. I'll bet my Mooney makes better time at 15K feet normally aspirated, too. I mean the Sling looks like a nice airplane, I just don't see getting hot and bothered about it.

 

[wayne]

Mind if I change the parameters a bit? Which 4 place experimentals have enough cargo space to carry luggage for 4 people? Let's say the PA28's cargo area is the starting point.

The aforementioned Bearhawk is one.

Revolution Aviation's RAI-6 claims a 1,600 lbs useful load.

 

[German guy]

Can't figure out the big deal with this Sling 4. Sorry, its slower in every way than my Mooney. I'll bet my Mooney makes better time at 15K feet normally aspirated, too. I mean the Sling looks like a nice airplane, I just don't see getting hot and bothered about it.

I wanted to order a Mooney kit, ideally quick build. Somehow the factory was however not interested in doing business with me, very disappointing customer support.

We are actually interested in building a Sling 4 in the upcoming Rotax 915 variant, once we're done with the Zenith. The price for the 915 however keeps creeping up, so let's see. It is projected to cruise at altitude at +150kts! Keep in mind that even though it makes 'only' 141 hp, it maintains full power up to 15,000 ft.

Already at 7,500 ft. a 180 hp Mooney makes only about the same hp but has to haul quite a bit more weight. At 10,000 ft., 127 hp and at 15,000 ft. only 99 hp are left of the 180 hp, while the Rotax 915 still provides 141 hp.

Based on what I've seen so far, the Sling kits are currently also the most refined kits on the market, with pretty much all holes already final size and all the metal parts already deburred and alodined(!!).

I understand that a complete Sling 4 can be built for around $120K - $130K, but that around $150K are more realistic for a nicely equipped aircraft. IMHO not bad for a brand spanking new plane!