4 place experimentals

U

UngaWunga

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
2,020
Display Name
Display name:
UngaWunga
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?
 
Lancair, Revolution RAI-6. There's quite a few.
 
RV-10 is the first that comes to my mind.
 
Need a little more detail on "reasonable load" and "quick" but my Velocity has a 500 lb payload, 165 KTAS (2700 rpm) and 1000 mile range. Well under 100K.
 
Last edited:
Ideally I'd love to have an experimental Mooney M20F. Can find them for $50-60k, 150knts, and 900-1000 useful.

Another problem is that my home field is 2100'.
 
Sounds like to me you want to buy and not build. If your budget is less than $100K then IMO you are better off buying a used standard certificated aircraft like the Mooney you mentioned. There's a lot of things you can do to lower your cost of ownership, like owner assisted maintenance, to bring things closer to the E-AB world.
 
Last edited:
ircphoenix said:
Is the RV-10 as tight as the 7?
Click to expand...

The 10 is wider across the cockpit than the 7. I thought it was a reasonably decent cockpit size and I am 6'4" and about 235lbs (there's quite a few flying or being built out my way).
 
ircphoenix said:
Is the RV-10 as tight as the 7?
Click to expand...

It is about 6" wider and feels much, much bigger on the inside. Also, you're sitting up waay high in the cockpit and forward of the LE of the wing. The visibility out of it is great compared to anything else that doesn't have a bubble canopy.
 
I've sat right seat in a 7. Ho-lee crap. The little asian dude who is about 5'2 and 94 pounds loves it. I'm only 5'10 and 180 and it was uncomfortable for me.
 
ircphoenix said:
I've sat right seat in a 7. Ho-lee crap. The little asian dude who is about 5'2 and 94 pounds loves it. I'm only 5'10 and 180 and it was uncomfortable for me.
Click to expand...

I think that's one reason Van came out with the "All American" version in the RV-14.:cool:

Probably the reason Ravioli avoids bulking up too. :D
 
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.
 
Ravioli said:
Yah, that's the reason. And I can carry more fuel!
Click to expand...

I thought those things were so remarkably efficient they hardly needed fuel at all. :confused:

If you want to carry fuel around the skies I recommend you trade up to one of these (cockpit width won't be an issue, so go ahead and order that pasta with cream sauce): :D

IMG_0255.JPG
 
ircphoenix said:
I've sat right seat in a 7. Ho-lee crap. The little asian dude who is about 5'2 and 94 pounds loves it. I'm only 5'10 and 180 and it was uncomfortable for me.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting observation. I'm as far removed from an RV/Cirrus apologist as they come, but I did an IPC for an RV-9 owner (identical cabin dimensions as the -7 fuse) and the seating didn't seem notably different than the PA-28-variants seating I've spent most of my GA time shoehorned into. According to the literature the elbow width is 43" (dependent on EAB owner interior finish decisions). That seemed about right to me. Also recognize the leg room is owner built and NOT adjustable (what a joke...experimental builders couldn't be bothered to have the foresight of making the seating adjustable either on the seat pan side or the rudder pedal side?). So you can end up with uber leg room on one RV-7 and amputee leg room on another RV-7. If your friend was as small and also the builder, there's a good chance he fit it to suit him and the hell with passengers. A bit myopic imo but plausible.
 
ircphoenix said:
I've sat right seat in a 7. Ho-lee crap. The little asian dude who is about 5'2 and 94 pounds loves it. I'm only 5'10 and 180 and it was uncomfortable for me.
Click to expand...

5'10, 240, was tight but not uncomfortable. For an hour or so.
Flew back seat in a Cozy IV today, due to combined weight of just us two. Other than a headrest too far forward, was very comfortable with leg room etc.
To get out of 2100' (with proper safety) with 3-4 people, and other than stone cold temps you're going to need constant speed and a bunch of HP!
 
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.
 
hindsight2020 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The 4-seat Experimental/homebuilt is a problematic design and marketing exercise too. Carry 4 people means bigger airframe which means more weight, more airframe weight means bigger engine which means more weight, bigger engine means more fuel capacity which means more weight, and on it goes.

4 place also means the potentially daunting prospect of a bigger build project, more space needed to build it, more rivets, more time, more money, so there's probably a kit marketing challenge, although Vans seems to have done well with the 10.

And then there's people that build, but don't really want to fly...which means many of those that want to fly look at the value quotient and do exactly what you described. :thumbsup:
 
hindsight2020 said:
That's an interesting observation. I'm as far removed from an RV/Cirrus apologist as they come, but I did an IPC for an RV-9 owner (identical cabin dimensions as the -7 fuse) and the seating didn't seem notably different than the PA-28-variants seating I've spent most of my GA time shoehorned into. According to the literature the elbow width is 43" (dependent on EAB owner interior finish decisions). That seemed about right to me. Also recognize the leg room is owner built and NOT adjustable (what a joke...experimental builders couldn't be bothered to have the foresight of making the seating adjustable either on the seat pan side or the rudder pedal side?).
Click to expand...

The seats are adjustable on all of the side by side models. There are 3 positions for where the seat bottom and back join (that drives legroom) and 3 positions for setting the seat back incline. Add that to how thin or thick you stack the cushions, and there is a lot of adjustability. It only takes a couple of minutes to adjust. In addition, you can move the fore and aft location of the rudder pedals, but doing that is a lot like work...

So, there!
 
asicer said:
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.
Click to expand...

How much luggage is the $64,000 question.

Years ago my hangar partner, who owned a Bo, offered to fly the two teenage daughters of a friend to a party they wanted to attend in a city some 400 miles away. They each showed up at the airport with the usual baggage allowance of two carry-on pieces, and one large checked baggage suitcase far too big to fit into the airplane.

Most experimentals/homebuilts won't be generous with baggage capacity. BUT if you really need to carry a load try one of these:

http://www.murphyair.com/detail/moose
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
The seats are adjustable on all of the side by side models. There are 3 positions for where the seat bottom and back join (that drives legroom) and 3 positions for setting the seat back incline. Add that to how thin or thick you stack the cushions, and there is a lot of adjustability. It only takes a couple of minutes to adjust. In addition, you can move the fore and aft location of the rudder pedals, but doing that is a lot like work...

So, there!
Click to expand...

The tandem seat RV-8 has an easily adjustable front seat rudder pedal arrangement, but not all builders install it. Some actually build their planes as very personal projects with no intention that others will be flying it very often if at all.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
About the only 4 place experimental that you can buy that will operate out of that small of a strip for under 100k is a CH801 or maybe some older Pacer replicas.

Best value for speed and 4 seats will be a cozy or a Velocity.

You may be able to find a stripped down mid time Bearhawk for around 100k that will do 182 speeds, carry a massive load, and can handle the short strip with ease.
 
tsts4 said:
My RV-10 has 13cuft of baggage space behind the rear seats--
Click to expand...

For reference, an Archer has nearly twice that: 24cu-ft.
kme02.png
 
asicer said:
For reference, an Archer has nearly twice that: 24cu-ft.
kme02.png
Click to expand...
That's nice. Here's what it looks like in the RV-10:
interior_rv-10.gif


The baggage load limit is 100lbs. The Archer may have more than double the baggage space but I'm cruising at least 30 KTS faster (probably closer to 40), taking off and landing shorter, climbing twice as fast and all at a GW of 2700lbs (1070 useful).
 
ircphoenix said:
I've sat right seat in a 7. Ho-lee crap. The little asian dude who is about 5'2 and 94 pounds loves it. I'm only 5'10 and 180 and it was uncomfortable for me.
Click to expand...
I guess this is subjective. I recently sold a Tiger and bought a Van's -9(same cabin width as the -7). Wife and I are 140/5'5 and 180/5'9. She says there is more room in the -9 than the Tiger. I tend to agree, it's plenty comfortable for us. You do sit lower in the fuselage in the Van's, so ingress/egress is a little less convenient.
 
edo2000 said:
I guess this is subjective. I recently sold a Tiger and bought a Van's -9(same cabin width as the -7). Wife and I are 140/5'5 and 180/5'9. She says there is more room in the -9 than the Tiger. I tend to agree, it's plenty comfortable for us. You do sit lower in the fuselage in the Van's, so ingress/egress is a little less convenient.
Click to expand...

Plus, you can't climb out with the canopy open in the Vans. That's a nice feature on a hot day. I really wish Vans would fix that.
 
Interesting. Let's paraphrase the sub-thread, shall we?

Me: "What 4 place experimental has as much baggage space as an Archer?"
You: "My RV10 can carry 13cuft"
Me: "Uh, that's only half the space of an Archer"
You: "I'm 40kts faster than an Archer! Archers suck!!!"
Me: "Um, that doesn't answer my question"

You guys are funny.:)
 
asicer said:
Interesting. Let's paraphrase the sub-thread, shall we?

Me: "What 4 place experimental has as much baggage space as an Archer?"
You: "My RV10 can carry 13cuft"
Me: "Uh, that's only half the space of an Archer"
You: "I'm 40kts faster than an Archer! Archers suck!!!"
Me: "Um, that doesn't answer my question"

You guys are funny.:)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
asicer said:
Interesting. Let's paraphrase the sub-thread, shall we?

Me: "What 4 place experimental has as much baggage space as an Archer?"
You: "My RV10 can carry 13cuft"
Me: "Uh, that's only half the space of an Archer"
You: "I'm 40kts faster than an Archer! Archers suck!!!"
Me: "Um, that doesn't answer my question"

You guys are funny.:)
Click to expand...

Not quite -- I never said Archers suck. You asked what 4-place experimentals carry enough baggage for 4 people using an Archer as a starting point. To which I initially replied with 13cuft which is enough to easily hold 4 full sized duffel bags. That's more than adequate for 4 adults as is the 100 lbs load limit but is definitely not the best out there. How much luggage did you have in mind? You countered with an Archer has more than twice my 10's space and I pointed out where I have advantages over the Archer. If it matters, I have hardpoints to which I can attach an external cargo pod (which I have yet to purchase) that adds an additional 25cuft of cargo volume at the cost of about 5-7KTS:
PodInFlight_sm.jpg

You can even put a motorcycle in it:
motorcycle01.jpg
 
tsts4 said:
Not quite -- I never said Archers suck. You asked what 4-place experimentals carry enough baggage for 4 people using an Archer as a starting point. To which I initially replied with 13cuft which is enough to easily hold 4 full sized duffel bags. That's more than adequate for 4 adults as is the 100 lbs load limit but is definitely not the best out there. How much luggage did you have in mind?
Click to expand...

Where the RV-10 is a bit shy is on baggage volume (IMO), not weight. The reality is that you can tuck quite a bit of stuff in the footwells of an RV (or any airplane), with the stuff sitting at the base of the seat and behind the occupant's feet. But that doesn't work for bulky items.
 
tsts4 said:
If it matters, I have hardpoints to which I can attach an external cargo pod (which I have yet to purchase) that adds an additional 25cuft of cargo volume at the cost of about 5-7KTS:
PodInFlight_sm.jpg

You can even put a motorcycle in it:
motorcycle01.jpg
Click to expand...

nice. That's a %ing cool mod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top