4 place experimentals

citizen5000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it IS only 100hp and therefore unlikely to be a good power plant for a 4 place airplane.

If I was going to build one, it would be the RV-10 with the biggest engine available.
 
bflynn said:
Yes, but it IS only 100hp and therefore unlikely to be a good power plant for a 4 place airplane.

If I was going to build one, it would be the RV-10 with the biggest engine available.
Click to expand...

RV-10 with IO-540 (260hp) gets you cabin size slightly larger than C-182, 165kts cruise on ~14gph, enough luggage room for a family of four to travel for a 4-5 day trip. Not as 'snappy' as a RV-7, but still has handling stability of RV series and you get the bonus of being able to put the radio stack you want in it without paying 'certified' prices.
 
steingar said:
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.
Click to expand...

What I don't get is the kit is only about 6k less than the rv-10 and the engine is only a couple grand less and it's 50kts slower? The only winning point is the fuel burn. Game set match rv-10.

Bob
 
GRG55 said:
Not new. But I'd spring for the extra cash and prefer one of these instead.;)

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/22232841/1987-beechcraft-f33a-bonanza
Click to expand...

Bo's are nice. But even a nice one like that is a 20 year old airplane. Oh, wait. 30 years old. Complete with 30 year old hinges, wiring, bushings, and everything else. Maintenance will be more expensive than on an experimental, and any upgrades (panel in particular, interior too) will cost you a serious premium in the certified world vs the experimental world.
 
kyleb said:
Bo's are nice. But even a nice one like that is a 20 year old airplane. Oh, wait. 30 years old. Complete with 30 year old hinges, wiring, bushings, and everything else. Maintenance will be more expensive than on an experimental, and any upgrades (panel in particular, interior too) will cost you a serious premium in the certified world vs the experimental world.
Click to expand...

And the Bo's retractable landing gear can require serious infusions of cash at annual time too. They're beautiful airplanes, though.
 
kyleb said:
Bo's are nice. But even a nice one like that is a 20 year old airplane. Oh, wait. 30 years old. Complete with 30 year old hinges, wiring, bushings, and everything else. Maintenance will be more expensive than on an experimental, and any upgrades (panel in particular, interior too) will cost you a serious premium in the certified world vs the experimental world.
Click to expand...

You fly an IO-550 equipped F-33 just once, you'll forget about Sling'in it. ;)
 
GRG55 said:
You fly an IO-550 equipped F-33 just once, you'll forget about Sling'in it. ;)
Click to expand...

Sling? Bwhahaha... I'm a few months from finishing my RV-10. ;-) I have a whole frickn' airplane (except the prop) sitting in various parts of the house. SWMBO is not amused by the garmin glass panel arrayed across the dining room table...
 
SLING is up to 150K, that is a IFR finished RV-10!? The whole appeal of the SLING was the price. If they are the same, might as well go RV. I know some of the smaller RVs run MOGAS, so I suspect that the IO-540 can be modified in some way to do the same. Then it becomes purely do you want speed or better fuel consumption. RV goes about 50 knots faster at 75% cruise, but the SLING burns only 6 gph vs ~14 gph. That translates roughly to 21 NM/gal vs 12 NM/gal. I have heard people get closer to 10.5 gph at 160 knots (15 NM/gal) LOP, bet if you slowed that thing down to SLING 4 speeds it would approach similar fuel consumption per mile. I know that everybody just looks at gph, but it makes it really hard to compare two aircraft that fly at very different speeds. At 55% the RV-10 should be still going 156 kts with 9.8 gph and capable of 148 knots with 8.5 gph (16NM/gal and 17 NM/gal), neither of these numbers of are LOP and you are still going quite a bit faster than the SLING. I am not sure you would want to fly an IO-540 around at less than 45% though. Maybe someone that owns an RV could go up and tell us what kind of fuel burn they get at 148 knots LOP and what they could do at 124 knots.
 
jaymark6655 said:
SLING is up to 150K, that is a IFR finished RV-10!? The whole appeal of the SLING was the price. If they are the same, might as well go RV. I know some of the smaller RVs run MOGAS, so I suspect that the IO-540 can be modified in some way to do the same. Then it becomes purely do you want speed or better fuel consumption. RV goes about 50 knots faster at 75% cruise, but the SLING burns only 6 gph vs ~14 gph. That translates roughly to 21 NM/gal vs 12 NM/gal. I have heard people get closer to 10.5 gph at 160 knots (15 NM/gal) LOP, bet if you slowed that thing down to SLING 4 speeds it would approach similar fuel consumption per mile. I know that everybody just looks at gph, but it makes it really hard to compare two aircraft that fly at very different speeds. At 55% the RV-10 should be still going 156 kts with 9.8 gph and capable of 148 knots with 8.5 gph (16NM/gal and 17 NM/gal), neither of these numbers of are LOP and you are still going quite a bit faster than the SLING. I am not sure you would want to fly an IO-540 around at less than 45% though. Maybe someone that owns an RV could go up and tell us what kind of fuel burn they get at 148 knots LOP and what they could do at 124 knots.
Click to expand...

Your projected performance numbers should be about right. What is missing (I assume) is load carrying capacity and altitude performance. Most -10's have a useful load of ~1100 lbs, and can easily climb into the oxygen levels. I doubt (but don't know) that the Sling can do that. You can build (probably not buy) an RV-10 for $150k, IFR equipped. By going with a used engine, doing the paint yourself, and not needing a Star Trek panel, you could do it for even less.
 
Sling should be able to climb to 15,000 and can carry 703 lbs (992 useful) with full fuel, RV is 740 lbs (1100 useful) with full fuel and estimated 20,000. Yes, build for 150K; I think I planned 2 10.3" GRT panels everything else I could think to throw in it. Last time I had looked at SLING, I came up with a price tag of 111K.
 
I am not quite sure why everybody seems to ignore it, but the Zodiac ch640 is pretty much the Archer of the experimental world. 180hp, 130 kt cruise, 1000lb useful load, great ifr platform, docile handling, decent shorter field performance, simple, and inexpensive to fly and maintain. I built one in 2005 and have been flying it for 13 years. The RV10 is the equivalent of the Cirrus of the experimental 4 seaters. Even people who know next to nothing about experimentals know of the RV10. It is a great aircraft, but is not affordable for many people looking for a plane to perform that mission.
 
The Sling 4 at 9,000 ft and above will do 135-140 knots TAS on 6 GPH. It uses the Rotax 914 turbo which is my favorite engine in GA. 115hp for 5 minutes and 100hp continuous up to 16,000ft. It’s one of the nicest handling Aircraft I’ve ever flown for sure.

With the 915 iS being able to deliver 141hp to 15,000ft, and 135hp continuous, a modified airfoil will do the Sling 4 wonders and will be a great upgrade. 145-150 knots TAS up at altitude with fuel burn in the 6-7GPH range. This aircraft will cost a tad over $200K though.
 
Last edited:
The velocity xl and the sportsman 2+2 would make good choices,but probably over your price point.
 
Zenair also sells the less-sexy CH 801 4 seater
 
jaymark6655 said:
Is the Zodiac CH640 still for sale?
Click to expand...
The CH640 rear seat is pretty cramped. It's more like a 2+2 than a real 4 place airplane.

The current issue (May 2018) issue of Kitplanes has a good article on a Continental CD-265 Diesel powered RV-10. The builder is an airline pilot. 235 hp burning 12 gph of Jet-A at altitude ain't too shabby.
 
I thought Sling 4 was only $200,000 if you build it with help out in Oregon, $110,000 for slow build on your own. Must estimates I do on the RV-10 are around $150,000 for full glass, carbon fiber, and leather interior. The CH640 was $75,000 without any gauges, not sure if it comes with any kind of interior.
 
jaymark6655 said:
I thought Sling 4 was only $200,000 if you build it with help out in Oregon, $110,000 for slow build on your own. Must estimates I do on the RV-10 are around $150,000 for full glass, carbon fiber, and leather interior. The CH640 was $75,000 without any gauges, not sure if it comes with any kind of interior.
Click to expand...

If you go "full boat" on an RV-10, you'll easily exceed $150k. A two screen, two comm, G3X panel with IFR navigator will run you close to $30k once you buy all of magic stuff from Garmin and the ancillary items too (you need a host of switches for various things - lights, flaps, fuel pump, etc.)... The engine is nearly $50k with all of the accessories, the prop is $8500, you're gonna spend $3K+ on the interior and $10K+ on the paint. That's right at $100k before you buy the first part for the airframe or the first tool. Now, if you wanna go used engine, nice VFR panel (upgradeabe, of course), and fly it unpainted for a while, you'll be closer to $100-110K.

Given that I'm right in the middle of avionics and engine installation on mine, and will be dropping some parts at the paint shop in the next week or two, I can relate these costs pretty accurately. ;-)
 
jaymark6655 said:
SLING is up to 150K, that is a IFR finished RV-10!? The whole appeal of the SLING was the price. If they are the same, might as well go RV. I know some of the smaller RVs run MOGAS, so I suspect that the IO-540 can be modified in some way to do the same. Then it becomes purely do you want speed or better fuel consumption. RV goes about 50 knots faster at 75% cruise, but the SLING burns only 6 gph vs ~14 gph. That translates roughly to 21 NM/gal vs 12 NM/gal. I have heard people get closer to 10.5 gph at 160 knots (15 NM/gal) LOP, bet if you slowed that thing down to SLING 4 speeds it would approach similar fuel consumption per mile. I know that everybody just looks at gph, but it makes it really hard to compare two aircraft that fly at very different speeds. At 55% the RV-10 should be still going 156 kts with 9.8 gph and capable of 148 knots with 8.5 gph (16NM/gal and 17 NM/gal), neither of these numbers of are LOP and you are still going quite a bit faster than the SLING. I am not sure you would want to fly an IO-540 around at less than 45% though. Maybe someone that owns an RV could go up and tell us what kind of fuel burn they get at 148 knots LOP and what they could do at 124 knots.
Click to expand...

I checked out an RV-10 this week and the owner told me he typically cruises at 168 kts burning only 10 gph. One of the reasons I think RV-10 is the best kit build airplanes in the market today. I compiled my top 5 list here https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/top-5-experimental-airplanes-in-ga.109815/

dsc01083-jpg.61417
 

Attachments

  • DSC01083.JPG
    DSC01083.JPG
    173.7 KB · Views: 162
tsts4 said:
My RV-10 has 13cuft of baggage space behind the rear seats-- easily holds 4 full size duffle bag type bags or enough gear to camp at Osh for a week. And since we're talking 4-place aircraft I don't get why folks are bringing up RV-7/8/9's -- there is no comparison to an RV-10 which is cavernous in comparison.

As for performance, in my 10 I can carry myself (185lbs) and three 170lbs pax (or any combo totaling 510) and full fuel (60 gal) but no baggage. For bags either someone has to go on a diet or we go with reduced fuel. For example, if I reduce fuel by 10 gals I can add ~50lbs of bags, remain in CG, and have an IFR range of 610NM (~3 hrs 48 min @160TAS burning 11GPH plus IFR reserves). This won't win any bragging rights but that's OK because when I have pax, especially family, I rarely fly over 3 hour legs.

Oh and 2100 ft runways are a piece a cake.
Click to expand...

Since we're on the subject of Vans and baggage compartments, why the hell doesn't the RV-14 have a baggage door?? I get cheaping out on all the other Vans 2 place models because they just figure you'll schlep what little you can put in the baggage area of those up on the wing and over the seats, but the bigger RV-14 actually has a proper baggage area. Why doesn't it have the baggage door the 10 has?
 
Dav8or said:
Since we're on the subject of Vans and baggage compartments, why the hell doesn't the RV-14 have a baggage door?? I get cheaping out on all the other Vans 2 place models because they just figure you'll schlep what little you can put in the baggage area of those up on the wing and over the seats, but the bigger RV-14 actually has a proper baggage area. Why doesn't it have the baggage door the 10 has?
Click to expand...

Structure, my man, structure. The -10 isn't aerobatic. The -14 is. That big hole in the side of the airplane is a huge structural compromise that would require a work-around, particularly for an aerobatic airplane. The good thing is that, being an experimental, you are free to design and build a baggage door to meet your needs. Probably a great aftermarket addition if someone was willing to do the engineering to design one properly.
 
easik said:
I checked out an RV-10 this week and the owner told me he typically cruises at 168 kts burning only 10 gph. One of the reasons I think RV-10 is the best kit build airplanes in the market today. I compiled my top 5 list here https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/top-5-experimental-airplanes-in-ga.109815/
Click to expand...

Those numbers seem suspect to me - not saying it isn't possible, just a bit outside what I see when flying the -10. I'm usually getting 165 KTAS on 14 GPH. Are you sure his numbers weren't in MPH instead of KTS? If using MPH, I could see the numbers of 145(ish) KTAS at 10 GPH making sense.
 
CJones said:
Those numbers seem suspect to me - not saying it isn't possible, just a bit outside what I see when flying the -10. I'm usually getting 165 KTAS on 14 GPH. Are you sure his numbers weren't in MPH instead of KTS? If using MPH, I could see the numbers of 145(ish) KTAS at 10 GPH making sense.
Click to expand...
Possibly I'm planning to go up flying with him later this month so I can gauge the numbers myself. At what altitudes do you usually cruise at 165KTS?
 
CJones said:
Those numbers seem suspect to me - not saying it isn't possible, just a bit outside what I see when flying the -10. I'm usually getting 165 KTAS on 14 GPH. Are you sure his numbers weren't in MPH instead of KTS? If using MPH, I could see the numbers of 145(ish) KTAS at 10 GPH making sense.
Click to expand...

I was going back and forth with the owner of that airplane today about a different subject. I didn't ask him about his performance, but I do know he has O2 in the airplane and likes to fly high. That probably helps.
 
Just for more data points, I typically see 160 TAS at 8000’, 2350 RPM burning 11.5 gph and can nudge 170 TAS if I bump it up to 15 gph.
 
easik said:
Possibly I'm planning to go up flying with him later this month so I can gauge the numbers myself. At what altitudes do you usually cruise at 165KTS?
Click to expand...

I usually do XC flying at ~9-10k.
 
tsts4 said:
Just for more data points, I typically see 160 TAS at 8000’, 2350 RPM burning 11.5 gph and can nudge 170 TAS if I bump it up to 15 gph.
Click to expand...

Is that with the 260hp engine?
 
kyleb said:
I was going back and forth with the owner of that airplane today about a different subject. I didn't ask him about his performance, but I do know he has O2 in the airplane and likes to fly high. That probably helps.
Click to expand...

Could be. I haven't had the -10 up to 02 levels yet. Had the -7A up to 17,500 once and it felt like the little engine that could at that altitude.
 
tsts4 said:
Just for more data points, I typically see 160 TAS at 8000’, 2350 RPM burning 11.5 gph and can nudge 170 TAS if I bump it up to 15 gph.
Click to expand...

Same here for my ‘10. Running at peak power (not LOP) I get CJones numbers but don’t fly that way.

You can easily trade a few knots for some fractional GPH by moving things around a bit but these numbers are good and typical. Those other numbers are slightly exaggerated in the normal fashion.

Generally speaking, numbers issued by Vans are accurate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
UngaWunga said:
What's out there? I've seen some articles on the Bede BD-4, and am surprised to find a 4 place experimental at a reasonable price. Sure, most of them at this point are older and might need some work, but it got me thinking. Are there other experimental out there that can carry a reasonable load, are quick, and aren't over $100K? I know about the Rv10, but even uncompleted projects are almost $150k. What else is out there?
Click to expand...
UngaWunga said:
What's out there? I've seen some articles on the Bede BD-4, and am surprised to find a 4 place experimental at a reasonable price. Sure, most of them at this point are older and might need some work, but it got me thinking. Are there other experimental out there that can carry a reasonable load, are quick, and aren't over $100K? I know about the Rv10, but even uncompleted projects are almost $150k. What else is out there?
Click to expand...

Alpi pioneer 400. Might have to steal an engine to get your price target though but a very sweet plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top