The Van’s RV-10 - Is it the perfect airplane?

tsts4 said:
There was a fatal accident about 5 years or so ago where the pilot's door came open right after takeoff (didn't depart the airframe) and the pilot stalled the plane and crashed while trying to the close the door.
Click to expand...
My bad, I said doors departing in flight, but that's not exactly what I meant. Its not the door departing the aircraft that's the problem, its the door latches not doing their job that allows the door to open in flight. It doesn't seem to be a huge issue, but it does seem to be something that can happen with the design.
 
I love comparing the Comanche to my friend's RV10. Our numbers are basically the same with two big differences. Range and useful load. Both file 160kt, both are roomy, both burn the same fuel but my plane holds 90gal vs the RV's 60. The PA24 250 has 1200+lb useful with no CG issues. It truely is a 4 full seat, baggage and full fuel plane. Biggest insult I get is maintenance on a 59yr old plane but you can buy 3 PA24 250s for the price to build an RV. Having said that, the RV is a worthy competitor. I just need an RV8 for the solo flights!
 
Speaking of door latches, is there a reason that a typical automotive door striker/latch doesn’t work for GA aircraft? Always seems odd to me how troublesome the GA door pins/latching mechanisms are.
 
Katamarino said:
If you can fill the seats, the tanks, and carry baggage all at the same time, then you're wasting potential performance in all of those categories...
Click to expand...
But he said four FAA Standard Sized people. Most of my men friends and I are more than "standard size", and even if our wives aren't, they aren't going on any long trips with less than 60# baggage total.
 
Gmonnig said:
I love comparing the Comanche to my friend's RV10. Our numbers are basically the same with two big differences. Range and useful load. Both file 160kt, both are roomy, both burn the same fuel but my plane holds 90gal vs the RV's 60. The PA24 250 has 1200+lb useful with no CG issues. It truely is a 4 full seat, baggage and full fuel plane. Biggest insult I get is maintenance on a 59yr old plane but you can buy 3 PA24 250s for the price to build an RV. Having said that, the RV is a worthy competitor. I just need an RV8 for the solo flights!
Click to expand...
yes, but can you buy a zero time, glass panel with coupled auto pilot with YD PA-24 for less than a rv-10? as you said, its a great plane but it is still 50 years old.
 
Katamarino said:
If you can fill the seats, the tanks, and carry baggage all at the same time, then you're wasting potential performance in all of those categories...
Click to expand...
Well, so are the folks driving F-250s to the grocery store, because every once in a while they pull that 11,000 lb. trailer with their farm tractor on it.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Speaking of door latches, is there a reason that a typical automotive door striker/latch doesn’t work for GA aircraft? Always seems odd to me how troublesome the GA door pins/latching mechanisms are.
Click to expand...
Your plane door is like a piece of cardboard compared to a car door. On a small plane, there's not a lot of weight/force that the door latch mechanism really needs to resist compared to the design requirements of a car door. There's also not a lot of room inside the plane door for complex, beefy mechanisms.

The plane door, and it's latch mechanisms, are just smaller and more lightweight than a car door.
 
tsts4 said:
IIRC there have been a few door departures (like 3 or 4) but no fatalities as a result. There was a fatal accident about 5 years or so ago where the pilot's door came open right after takeoff (didn't depart the airframe) and the pilot stalled the plane and crashed while trying to the close the door. I'm very anal about my doors and physically make sure the rear pins are properly engaged on both doors and I never have them open when the prop is turning.
Click to expand...
The original door latch design was poor indeed. It was possible to close the door handle and to have the 1 of the pins sitting on the out side surface of the plane. The door will remain closed and seemingly closed until after takeoff. The door can blow off in flight and hit the stabilizer.

Quickly, several factory and after market replacements appeared. They are much more positive and fool proof.

The composite doors (and the composite cabin top for that matter) are one of the more challenging aspects of the build to do well. Early versions of the kit reflected the fact that composite work was not a Vans core competency. Things got much better in later kits.

I really like the gull wing doors but not sure it is one of the most functionally elegant parts of the design.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Bill Watson said:
The original door latch design was poor indeed. It was possible to close the door handle and to have the 1 of the pins sitting on the out side surface of the plane. The door will remain closed and seemingly closed until after takeoff. The door can blow off in flight and hit the stabilizer.

Quickly, several factory and after market replacements appeared. They are much more positive and fool proof.

The composite doors (and the composite cabin top for that matter) are one of the more challenging aspects of the build to do well. Early versions of the kit reflected the fact that composite work was not a Vans core competency. Things got much better in later kits.

I really like the gull wing doors but not sure it is one of the most functionally elegant parts of the design.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

I installed the PlaneAround center latch from the get go and it works as advertised but I still manually check the pins. I even decided not to install the indicator system to force myself to check the pins.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Speaking of door latches, is there a reason that a typical automotive door striker/latch doesn’t work for GA aircraft? Always seems odd to me how troublesome the GA door pins/latching mechanisms are.
Click to expand...
What are you flying? Compared to an automotive door latch, the ones you find on most GA aircraft are dirt simple. It would be hard to design something more straightforward.
 
Can you do a build assist on an RV10 at a build center? If not, that needs to happen!
 
tsts4 said:
Yes, but not factory sanctioned: https://www.saintaviation.com/

Curious as to why “it needs to happen”
Click to expand...

Perhaps "needs to" is a little bit of an exaggeration. My point is these planes take a long time to build, even QB kits, and the build assist EAB facilities shave tons of time off the build. The Glasair Sportsman "two weeks to taxi" is a prime example. Another is the Carbon Cub build assist.

Months instead of years, basically.
 
It's been a while, but my Tomahawk had a conventional striker mechanism that clicked when you closed the door. Then you threw a lever to over-center that latch and then you had another latch at the top of the door. As someone pointed out, you need all that to "fix" our flimsy doors in place.

The RV-10's door problem is the top hinged doors. Unlike front hinged doors (like on most aircraft) the airstream/prop blast doesn't tend to force them closed. The prop blast/wind tends to catch them and rip them off. Expensive, embarrassing, and dangerous if the door impacts the tail (which has happened).

I think the current tally on lost RV-10 doors is in double figures. Owners don't like to talk about such things.
 
tsts4 said:
I installed the PlaneAround center latch from the get go and it works as advertised but I still manually check the pins. I even decided not to install the indicator system to force myself to check the pins.
Click to expand...

I installed the same after a couple of years of operation (and one flight with a door unpinned but held until landing). The PlaneAround center latch works as advertised and while I have 100% confidence in its function, I visually check the door anyway because I can’t stop doing it.

The indicator system has so many parts and dependencies on door pin alignment that it quickly becomes more trouble than it’s worth. Completely unneeded with the center latch.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Ryanb said:
What are you flying? Compared to an automotive door latch, the ones you find on most GA aircraft are dirt simple. It would be hard to design something more straightforward.
Click to expand...

Well, the Cessnas are notorious for having door pins not engage the door jamb, and being finicky with getting them closed anyway. I realize that the doors are lighter and typically thinner in dimensions than most automotive types, but Jeep Wrangler doors don’t weigh hardly anything and the single post-catch mechanism works just fine. I would think having the top/bottom sliding pins would be naturally more problematic when the door is less beefy and prone to slight misalignment.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Well, the Cessnas are notorious for having door pins not engage the door jamb, and being finicky with getting them closed anyway. I realize that the doors are lighter and typically thinner in dimensions than most automotive types, but Jeep Wrangler doors don’t weigh hardly anything and the single post-catch mechanism works just fine. I would think having the top/bottom sliding pins would be naturally more problematic when the door is less beefy and prone to slight misalignment.
Click to expand...

I'm not gonna pull one of the doors from SWMBO's Wrangler, but I guarantee they weigh 50-75 lbs each. The doors on my RV-10 weighs less than 10 lbs each. And then you get into the whole stiffness issue of a deeper, pressed steel assembly vs a relatively thin fiberglass (or aluminum) assembly. Sure, the RV doors are fairly stiff, but it is kind of scary watching the attach points flex when you open and close them...
 
kyleb said:
I'm not gonna pull one of the doors from SWMBO's Wrangler, but I guarantee they weigh 50-75 lbs each. The doors on my RV-10 weighs less than 10 lbs each. And then you get into the whole stiffness issue of a deeper, pressed steel assembly vs a relatively thin fiberglass (or aluminum) assembly. Sure, the RV doors are fairly stiff, but it is kind of scary watching the attach points flex when you open and close them...
Click to expand...

My point isn’t that aircraft doors and automotive doors should be identical, it’s that the latching mechanism from an automotive door can likely be fit to an aircraft door in some fashion, albeit much smaller in scale since the aircraft doors don’t weigh as much. I was thinking more of the JK/JL half doors that utilize the same latching mechanism and only weigh 10-15 lbs. Full size Jeep doors weigh closer to 60lbs.
 
Ryanb said:
Yeah, I’m back on this kick again.

I know it all depends on the mission, but it seems like the RV-10 can take a stab at just about each of the primary needs that one can want in a personal airplane.
  • Impressive short-field performance, even at max gross weight.
  • It will carry four FAA standard adults, full fuel and sixty pounds of baggage while remaining at or below max gross weight.
  • Both front and back seats will hold people 6’4″ tall and provide them with truly comfortable leg and headroom.
  • 200+ MPH cruise / 55kt stall speed
  • True air speeds of 160-165 kts with a fuel burn of 11 - 11.3 GPH
So far, I’m really liking everything that I’m reading about this airplane. Anybody have any first hand experience with one? It would look great with me in the pilot’s seat, wearing a leather jacket and a pair of aviators and three knockout babes occupying the remaining seats on the way to the beach for a weekend trip. Can you dig it?

View attachment 75421 View attachment 75422
https://www.vansaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/10FLY-2-19-Screen.pdf
Click to expand...

Don’t know where you got you data, but the performance listed on the website indicates a fuel burn of 13.5 would be required for 165 kts.

If you want 165 knots on 11 gallon per hour you better get a M20J.
 
Clip4 said:
Don’t know where you got you data, but the performance listed on the website indicates a fuel burn of 13.5 would be required for 165 kts.

If you want 165 knots on 11 gallon per hour you better get a M20J.
Click to expand...
I got it from an owner who says he routinely sees those numbers. We all know that book and real world values aren’t always the same.
 
Ryanb said:
I got it from an owner who says he routinely sees those numbers. We all know that book and real world values aren’t always the same.
Click to expand...

Check the RV 10 site. 75% power is 190 MPH or 165 KTS at gross weight. 75% power is 13.5 GPH in the 235 HP engine.

He might get 165 mph with that fuel burn, which is only 143 kts.
 
Clip4 said:
He might get 165 mph with that fuel burn, which is only 143 kts.
Click to expand...
And? 100 pennies is still a dollar isn’t it?

I value a real world owner and operator’s numbers more than an estimate. This was also the consensus for many on the thread that I viewed on VAF.
 
Ryanb said:
And? 100 pennies is still a dollar isn’t it?

I value a real world owner and operator’s numbers more than an estimate. This was also the consensus for many on the thread that I viewed on VAF.
Click to expand...

So you think Van under estimates his performance numbers AND one can get 165 KTAS in an RV10 @ 55% power. Here is a hint, the published full burn on a Lycoming IO-540 is 10-12 gph at 55% power.
 
Clip4 said:
So you think Van under estimates his performance numbers AND one can get 165 KTAS in an RV10 @ 55% power. Here is a hint, the published full burn on a Lycoming IO-540 is 10-12 gph at 55% power.
Click to expand...

I get 160KTS TAS at GW burning 11.5 GPH LOP all day long. I can see 165 if I bump it closer to 13GPH. Van's numbers are solid and you can rely on them but they are more the floor not the ceiling. There are a lot 10's that see 170KTS TAS or better at the 12 GPH. It's not the engine though, it's the aerodynamics. Those birds were built with great attention to detail and are exceptionally clean aerodynamically both on the exterior and under the cowl. Van's prototype (and my own 10 to some extent) are crude in comparison. So yeah real world performance trumps the published numbers on the website.

Oh and for those checking out the website, 99.9% of the RV's out use the 260HP or higher IO-540's. There are some auto conversions and diesels too, but they are a small minority. I know of only one builder who opted for a 235HP O-540 and his plane was destroyed in a fuel system related crash.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, aside from speed and range how is it better than my Arrow? I looked at this last night. Yes it flies a third faster than the Arrow. So on a 400 nm trip the RV 10 gets there 45 minutes before me. It has a higher useful load by about 100 pounds but also uses more fuel. I Guess if I had the money I would get one but I don’t see it twice as good as my old Arrow. I also looked at the RV 14. Faster certainly but still more money and no back seat.
Let loose the hounds!
 
Morgan3820 said:
Seriously, aside from speed and range how is it better than my Arrow? I looked at this last night. Yes it flies a third faster than the Arrow. So on a 400 nm trip the RV 10 gets there 45 minutes before me. It has a higher useful load by about 100 pounds but also uses more fuel. I Guess if I had the money I would get one but I don’t see it twice as good as my old Arrow. I also looked at the RV 14. Faster certainly but still more money and no back seat.
Let loose the hounds!
Click to expand...

The RV10 is going to be more comfortable and roomy than the older certified birds. The biggest advantage is the ability to have the latest and greatest in technology and being able to keep it that way with none of the headaches of certified aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
Seriously, aside from speed and range how is it better than my Arrow? I looked at this last night. Yes it flies a third faster than the Arrow. So on a 400 nm trip the RV 10 gets there 45 minutes before me. It has a higher useful load by about 100 pounds but also uses more fuel. I Guess if I had the money I would get one but I don’t see it twice as good as my old Arrow. I also looked at the RV 14. Faster certainly but still more money and no back seat.
Let loose the hounds!
Click to expand...

More elbow room, especially in the front two seats. The Arrow cabin is listed at 42" wide and the RV-10 at 48 1/4" wide.

Plus 60 hp more and basically the same gross weight. I flew an Arrow for a few years. One summer trip I thought we'd never get to 9,000'; hot, humid and heavy. In a SR22 we climb to 9,000' (or higher) quickly. I would expect a RV-10 to be similar to the SR22 in that regard.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Seriously, aside from speed and range how is it better than my Arrow?
Click to expand...
Avionics and maintenance and cabin space. I suspect you could put a full glass panel in your Arrow if you put your mind to it but it wouldn't be cheap. On maintenance, right up front there are no retracts to swing and maintain and no A&P to pay to do it. When your Arrow needs an alternator you'll be buying a certified replacement. When your RV10 needs an alternator, you can go to NAPA. And you can change it yourself and sign the logs yourself. As for the cabin space, the numbers are what they are. Its bigger and it has two doors.

Now none of that may be important to you and if it isn't, then you're probably better off with your Arrow. But for some folks, those points are big.
 
How is the ride in an RV10? The 2 seat RVs seem to get a lot of their performance from low weight which translates to low wing loading which means a rough ride in turbulence--one of the few complaints I have heard from RV pilots. How is the noise level and ventilation?
 
The ride is typical of a 4-place airplane in the 2700-3000lbs GW range -- my wing loading is 18.2 lbs/sqft . It's handling is more sporty than say a 182 but is still a great IFR platform. It's loud -- an ANR headset is a must IMO -- I have Bose A20s for all 4 seats. Stock ventilation is great in the air but is sparse on the ground, especially if you're like me and never open the doors while the prop is turning. A lot of folks (myself included) add an overhead console with additional vents and that helps.
 
Ag
Grum.Man said:
The RV10 is going to be more comfortable and roomy than the older certified birds. The biggest advantage is the ability to have the latest and greatest in technology and being able to keep it that way with none of the headaches of certified aircraft.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I guess I would prefer to buy a new fishing boat with the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top