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

Todd82 said:
If it was really *perfect* I wouldn't have to trust myself or some variably trained shmuck to build it.

I surely wouldn't fly in anything I built myself :confused::eek:
Click to expand...

The point about some Joe building the plane would make me pause, however my hangar neighbor is a mechanical engineer and received the coveted "best Builders" award at OSH for his experimental. Another acquitnce is an A&P/IA, I'd buy his plane too. Talking with the Carbon Cub factory rep, he said the planes made with the quick build program sell quickly used and for more money.

There are a few exceptions.
 
kyleb said:
It is a LOT of work. I've been flying the RV-6 I built for 18 years and am a month of hard work from completing an RV-10. The good thing is, the nicest RV-10's around can be bought for ~$200k, which isn't much more than it would cost to build one.

But are they perfect? I'll let you know in a year or two...
Click to expand...

I got a quote from a building shop a few months ago and the going rate nowadays is around $270k for a new one, with a build time of 9-18 months.
 
Ben2k9 said:
I got a quote from a building shop a few months ago and the going rate nowadays is around $270k for a new one, with a build time of 9-18 months.
Click to expand...

Yes. If you want to write a check and have someone build it for you, against the rules and spirit of the experimental world, there is a cost premium.
 
I just started thinking about RV-10s. My daughter moved all my grandkids 450nm away, so the old Cherokee is not going to handle that mission. I need a true 4-place plane, and the speed difference would be about 75-90 min. Another appeal is the difference in annuals & avionics costs.
 
BarryCooper said:
I just started thinking about RV-10s. My daughter moved all my grandkids 450nm away, so the old Cherokee is not going to handle that mission. I need a true 4-place plane, and the speed difference would be about 75-90 min. Another appeal is the difference in annuals & avionics costs.
Click to expand...

its about need vs want, isn't it? The Cherokee can fly that far, it'll just take more time.
 
The difference between a <3 hour flight and a 4+ hour flight is a lot, IMO. Anything over 3 hours generally requires a bio stop, which adds another half hour to the trip. The speed (and climb) differential also give you a lot more options to avoid weather. But the same basic performance advantages exist with a Deb or a Comanche.
 
UngaWunga said:
its about need vs want, isn't it? The Cherokee can fly that far, it'll just take more time.
Click to expand...
You have a point, technical though it may be. How many of us actually "need" a plane in the first place? If I'm going to be making a 450nm trip on a regular basis, I am going to want something that can go ~150kts.
 
This has been an interesting discussion. I currently own a Tiger, but would love to have a RV10. But, at 62 yo, I’d rather be flying. So, have been looking at Comanche 250’s and Debonairs. Looked at Vtails for a while, it that damn RV issue is disconcerting. Not sure I’ll be flying much last 70 in a complex airplane do to the insurance, so don’t want to be left with something that has minimal residual value. Maybe a used older Cirrus would fit the bill. Latter than the Tiger, but still fixed gear.
 
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...

What’s your insurance like?
 
Rcmutz said:
This has been an interesting discussion. I currently own a Tiger, but would love to have a RV10. But, at 62 yo, I’d rather be flying. So, have been looking at Comanche 250’s and Debonairs. Looked at Vtails for a while, it that damn RV issue is disconcerting. Not sure I’ll be flying much last 70 in a complex airplane do to the insurance, so don’t want to be left with something that has minimal residual value. Maybe a used older Cirrus would fit the bill. Latter than the Tiger, but still fixed gear.
Click to expand...

If you are going to be flying for another ten to twenty years. RV has the potential to save a lot of money. One on avionics, two on maintenance.
However to save on MX, you have to be willing (and able) to do it. I am not...

Tim
 
I fly a couple 450 mile trips a year, some in my bonanza, some in my C172(180hp with csp. The hour difference is not that big a deal(3 vs 4hrs), but if it required a stop in between, no way. Each pilot is different, but range, maintenance, reliability are very important to me. Bonanza is great for 1000+ trips, not that big a deal for 500nm compared to a simpler, cheaper, more reliable plane. If I’m going to land for fuel, would rather find an interesting place and spend a nite or two visiting the area. I guess I’m lucky my wife feels the same way, but i know each situation is different.
 
I NEED the ability to take 2 adults + 2 grandkids. Fill the seats in the Cherokee and you can take on about 20 gallons of fuel
 
BarryCooper said:
I NEED the ability to take 2 adults + 2 grandkids. Fill the seats in the Cherokee and you can take on about 20 gallons of fuel
Click to expand...

I doubt the useful load will be much more than my archer with the amount of avionics people normally put in a -10, may be few 100 lb more. With that useful load, have you looked at Cherokee 6? Or something that’s a major load hauler with full fuel?
 
WannFly said:
I doubt the useful load will be much more than my archer with the amount of avionics people normally put in a -10, may be few 100 lb more. With that useful load, have you looked at Cherokee 6? Or something that’s a major load hauler with full fuel?
Click to expand...

Most -10's come in with a useful load of 1000-1100 lbs unless the builder raises the gross weight. I will not comment on the advisability of that practice.

With 60 gallons of fuel, that leaves you 640-740 lbs of "cargo" space unless you you offload some fuel, which is very doable for 450 mile flight.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Seems like a good mission for a Comanche or Commander 114 if looking certified.
Click to expand...

Except for a few flaws*, I really like Comanches. But they are getting old, and you can't call Aircraft Spruce or Piper for some of the important bits. I looked at 'em before I went down the RV-10 route and decided that passion (RV-10) trumped pragmatism (Comanche).

* My kingdom for a 2nd door.
* My fiefdom for better visibility.
 
BarryCooper said:
I NEED the ability to take 2 adults + 2 grandkids. Fill the seats in the Cherokee and you can take on about 20 gallons of fuel
Click to expand...

WannFly said:
I doubt the useful load will be much more than my archer with the amount of avionics people normally put in a -10, may be few 100 lb more. With that useful load, have you looked at Cherokee 6? Or something that’s a major load hauler with full fuel?
Click to expand...

I have flown an Archer and now a -10. Completely different birds, IMO. We tried putting 2 adults + 2 high school/college age kids in the Archer and it just doesn't work for the 450nm trips we were doing. Went to a 177RG which got us more room and a smidge more speed, but the -10 blows both of them out of the water as far as full fuel payload and comfort (which includes speed which reduce total trip time). I flew the -10 to Colorado last July and we took off from Ft. Collins with 2 adults + 2 kids (6yo + 8yo) and FULL baggage + full fuel in the middle of the day and had zero problems with climb performance or engine temps at that DA. Got on up to altitude out of the heat and bumps quickly and were cruising in relative comfort quickly. I don't think I would have attempted doing that in the Archer from the past, mostly because I don't think my wife could have handled slogging through the bumps in the climb for as long as the Archer would have taken to get to cruise altitude.
 
CJones said:
I have flown an Archer and now a -10. Completely different birds, IMO. We tried putting 2 adults + 2 high school/college age kids in the Archer and it just doesn't work for the 450nm trips we were doing. Went to a 177RG which got us more room and a smidge more speed, but the -10 blows both of them out of the water as far as full fuel payload and comfort (which includes speed which reduce total trip time). I flew the -10 to Colorado last July and we took off from Ft. Collins with 2 adults + 2 kids (6yo + 8yo) and FULL baggage + full fuel in the middle of the day and had zero problems with climb performance or engine temps at that DA. Got on up to altitude out of the heat and bumps quickly and were cruising in relative comfort quickly. I don't think I would have attempted doing that in the Archer from the past, mostly because I don't think my wife could have handled slogging through the bumps in the climb for as long as the Archer would have taken to get to cruise altitude.
Click to expand...

Wasn’t comparing archer and -10 in performance, completely agree with you. But if OP is looking for a load hauler, not sure if -10 would fit his mission. Without knowing weight of the people and how much luggage and fuel he wants to haul, kinda difficult to say.
 
kyleb said:
Except for a few flaws*, I really like Comanches. But they are getting old, and you can't call Aircraft Spruce or Piper for some of the important bits. I looked at 'em before I went down the RV-10 route and decided that passion (RV-10) trumped pragmatism (Comanche).

* My kingdom for a 2nd door.
* My fiefdom for better visibility.
Click to expand...

That’s why I also specifically mentioned the Commander 114. Two doors, close to Comanche speeds, just about the largest 4-place cabin, and 114A-models are cheaper than most Bo’s or PA-32s. 114B models are pretty pricey and probably start to approach RV-10 prices.
 
CJones said:
I have flown an Archer and now a -10. Completely different birds, IMO. We tried putting 2 adults + 2 high school/college age kids in the Archer and it just doesn't work for the 450nm trips we were doing. Went to a 177RG which got us more room and a smidge more speed, but the -10 blows both of them out of the water as far as full fuel payload and comfort (which includes speed which reduce total trip time). I flew the -10 to Colorado last July and we took off from Ft. Collins with 2 adults + 2 kids (6yo + 8yo) and FULL baggage + full fuel in the middle of the day and had zero problems with climb performance or engine temps at that DA. Got on up to altitude out of the heat and bumps quickly and were cruising in relative comfort quickly. I don't think I would have attempted doing that in the Archer from the past, mostly because I don't think my wife could have handled slogging through the bumps in the climb for as long as the Archer would have taken to get to cruise altitude.
Click to expand...

I agree the Archer and the RV-10 are different airplanes with significant differences in powerplants and price. You can get a nice Archer for $80-100K ready to fly or a nice used RV-10 for $250K. I met 2 owners flying RV-10s and they were both over $230K in materials plus 2800 hours of build time. Depending on the value of your time, that is a lot of $$. It appears that you don't get a lot of dollar value for your building time when selling an RV used. Building an RV would be fun if I was retired or had the time.

I am a bit biased, the Archer is a great value for money. I can fly 730 lbs of passengers with fuel at the tabs(34 gallons/204 LBS) on a 2-3hr flight.
 
Baron62 said:
I agree the Archer and the RV-10 are different airplanes with significant differences in powerplants and price. You can get a nice Archer for $80-100K ready to fly or a nice used RV-10 for $250K. I met 2 owners flying RV-10s and they were both over $230K in materials plus 2800 hours of build time. Depending on the value of your time, that is a lot of $$. It appears that you don't get a lot of dollar value for your building time when selling an RV used. Building an RV would be fun if I was retired or had the time.

I am a bit biased, the Archer is a great value for money. I can fly 730 lbs of passengers with fuel at the tabs(34 gallons/204 LBS) on a 2-3hr flight.
Click to expand...

I really liked the Archer when I 'moved up' to it from a 172. The Archer just felt sexier than the pickup truck feel of the 172. I flew the Archer's cousin (Cherokee 180) to Oshkosh the first time I actually flew in to the show. At that time, we had 3 adults and camping stuff, so I agree it can haul a good amount of stuff, but for us the roominess and general comfort was a big incentive to move on to something else. Granted, my dad and I are tall folks (6'5" and 6'7") so 'normal' sized folks likely don't feel quite as cramped as we did climbing over seats in the Archer. :)
 
CJones said:
I really liked the Archer when I 'moved up' to it from a 172. The Archer just felt sexier than the pickup truck feel of the 172. I flew the Archer's cousin (Cherokee 180) to Oshkosh the first time I actually flew in to the show. At that time, we had 3 adults and camping stuff, so I agree it can haul a good amount of stuff, but for us the roominess and general comfort was a big incentive to move on to something else. Granted, my dad and I are tall folks (6'5" and 6'7") so 'normal' sized folks likely don't feel quite as cramped as we did climbing over seats in the Archer. :)
Click to expand...
Note that the Archer II is larger than a Cherokee 180 with 5 inches more rear seat room, larger door, larger wing, and a larger stabilator. It also has a fairly good sized baggage compartment door area that will carry 200 LBs. The RV-10 does have more passenger space than an Archer.
 
kyleb said:
It is a LOT of work. I've been flying the RV-6 I built for 18 years and am a month of hard work from completing an RV-10. The good thing is, the nicest RV-10's around can be bought for ~$200k, which isn't much more than it would cost to build one.

But are they perfect? I'll let you know in a year or two...
Click to expand...
How long does it take you to build them? The RV 10 especially. What if you did it as a full time job (assuming you're not now).
 
Ben Anderson said:
How long does it take you to build them? The RV 10 especially. What if you did it as a full time job (assuming you're not now).
Click to expand...

Van's quotes a 2000-2500 hour build time, as I recall. I don't track hours, but think that would be doable if you let the painter do most of the sanding, smoothing, and filling on the fiberglass. That's a lot of work, particularly if you're not experienced in that area. Mine, it is at the state of "almost finished" and I've got about 5 years of weekends and evenings in the project. I'm still gainfully employed and have a family, so I generally get 10 hours or so a week of work in on the airplane. I built an RV-6 back in my bachelor days, so this isn't my first rodeo. An RV-10 is a big project.
 
Yes, about 1 year worth of full time work sounds about right.

Mine took exactly 5 years with a QB kit. Six years if you add the year I spent building a shop inside my backyard hangar.

So with easy access to dedicated shop, I worked mostly after-work evenings and some weekends. But most weekends we were traveling around in our Maule; 10 -15 hours a week sounds about right but made no effort to measure it.

With a good accessible shop setup it becomes a question of whether it’s more fun to watch TV, party on the lake, or build your plane. The answer determines the value of your time in the project.

For a first time builder, the job is a series of new skills to learn, problems to solve and repetitive tasks to complete. The reward is watching ‘the perfect’ airplane take shape by your own hand.

The QB just eliminates a lot of repetitive tasks giving you time to focus on new skill building, problem solving and customizing the plane to fit your eye and imagination. I ended up doing everything myself including fiberglass, electrical, avionics and despite warnings, even the paint.

e18b18ccabbfc3d05e4ec8d4e91ea609.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Bill Watson said:
Yes, about 1 year worth of full time work sounds about right.

Mine took exactly 5 years with a QB kit. Six years if you add the year I spent building a shop inside my backyard hangar.

So with easy access to dedicated shop, I worked mostly after-work evenings and some weekends. But most weekends we were traveling around in our Maule; 10 -15 hours a week sounds about right but made no effort to measure it.

With a good accessible shop setup it becomes a question of whether it’s more fun to watch TV, party on the lake, or build your plane. The answer determines the value of your time in the project.

For a first time builder, the job is a series of new skills to learn, problems to solve and repetitive tasks to complete. The reward is watching ‘the perfect’ airplane take shape by your own hand.

The QB just eliminates a lot of repetitive tasks giving you time to focus on new skill building, problem solving and customizing the plane to fit your eye and imagination. I ended up doing everything myself including fiberglass, electrical, avionics and despite warnings, even the paint.

e18b18ccabbfc3d05e4ec8d4e91ea609.jpg



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

^This is spot-on. Two and a half of the the most enjoyable years of my life were spent building my QB RV. After having been laid off for the second time in two years, it was the ultimate immersion therapy. I learned many new skills, and polished up rusty ones I already had. I put about 1300 hours into mine.

The best part by far is picking all the (relatively) affordable avionics. I went glass because in the Experimental world, it's significantly cheaper than steam (well, with my GRT Sport SX setup at least). I loved pondering all the control placement possibilities on the IP...like putting the flap switch in juuuust the right place where I could most naturally operate it with my thumb with my hand resting on the throttle.

I kinda miss the building. I think the next one will be fabric and wood (possibly with tube frame fuselage) to learn a new set of skills. I'll most likely donate most of the specialized riveting tools to the local EAA chapter. The pay-it-forward sensibility of homebuilders is strong; I've had so many folks offer help and advice along the way.
 
Last edited:
Gmonnig said:
$1250 a year, so not bad at all.
Click to expand...

Well, while I am IFR rated, my retract time is only 16 hrs, with none in the Comanche. I was just quoted $2500. Probably not moving forward with a Comanche purchase.
 
kyleb said:
Yes. If you want to write a check and have someone build it for you, against the rules and spirit of the experimental world, there is a cost premium.
Click to expand...
It's not against the rules in Canada, and I would have to say I don't think against the spirit either. As others have said it all depends on what is right for you. Sure building it piece by piece might be appealing to you, and that's great, but for me I'd rather have all of the advantages of the experimental built to my spec by a professional. That's just me, I don't have the time nor the patience. I love the RV10, I love the customization, flight performance, and the price (even if built by someone else). I don't think that is against the spirit, whatever floats your boat and puts you in the sky with a smile is what counts!
 
steingar said:
Or course, good luck flying your spanky RV10 to Mexico or parts south.
Click to expand...

In 16 years of flying I still haven't piloted a plane out of the country. My plane has stickers for it. One of the partners has flown to the Bahamas a few times.

From what I've been reading about Mexico I'll pass. Too much hassle. I've been there flying commercial and cruising, but I'll pass on the flying private unless I'm in a group with someone coordinating things that's been there plenty of times.
 
My other limitation with an experimental plane is Angel Flight. That probably averages about 40% of my flying time.

Mostly I just can't see having the time to build. Plus the space now that we've downsized to a townhome, and one with a tiny garage. I subscribe to Kit Planes and follow it somewhat, because I find it interesting. I just don't see it happening though. A shame in some regards as it certainly looks quite a bit less expensive. I've done plenty of work on my cars over the years, so I could easily handle the mechanical work.
 
Flyingfish15 said:
Sure building it piece by piece might be appealing to you, and that's great, but for me I'd rather have all of the advantages of the experimental built to my spec by a professional.
Click to expand...
...and in the US, special airworthiness certification as experimental/exhibition is available for just that path. I find it hard to reconcile "built...by a professional" and "experimental/amateur built."

Nauga,
word for word
 
I was recently lucky enough to have my first flight in an experimental, a very pretty Sonex. Such an awesome plane, tight, fast, maneuverable


I've long been curious about the EA world, esp the twin Velocity since it satiates my Starship fetish. A major appeal is the sheer flexibility the builder gets with the plane, powerplant, cockpit design, modifications, etc.

..so, for sh!%@ and giggles, if one really wanted to turn their experimental into a genuine certified aircraft, how arduous of a process is that? It kind of goes in the face of the spirit of EA, but for sake of argument can it realistically be done by an individual? There have been small one-off outfits that did it, like Angel Aicraft..

What about the inverse..? Could you by a dilapidated old Bo, 'experimental' it, and refit the thing with different avionics, a Chevy small bloc (you know, how the T-51 guys do it), etc?? I'm assuming this is prohibitive on many fronts, as it doesn't seem like something people do. But is it possible?
 
Tantalum said:
..so, for sh!%@ and giggles, if one really wanted to turn their experimental into a genuine certified aircraft, how arduous of a process is that? It kind of goes in the face of the spirit of EA, but for sake of argument can it realistically be done by an individual? There have been small one-off outfits that did it, like Angel Aicraft..
Click to expand...
The Part 23 cert process is cost-prohibitive for an individual other than the most wealthy. What is the goal? Part 23 certification results in a TC and what amounts to approval to manufacture and market an airplane. As for "flying in the face of EA," experimental certs have been a part of the certification process since there was one. Too many people confuse experimental/amateur built special airworthiness with the rest of the experimental cert categories, including R&D and market research. Further, an airplane that was type-certificated and went into production is by definition *not* a one-off, regardless of the success of the design.

Tantalum said:
What about the inverse..? Could you by a dilapidated old Bo, 'experimental' it, and refit the thing with different avionics, a Chevy small bloc (you know, how the T-51 guys do it), etc?? I'm assuming this is prohibitive on many fronts, as it doesn't seem like something people do. But is it possible?
Click to expand...
It's "relatively" easy to reclassify a modified airplane as experimental/R&D, but you'll have a much tougher case meeting the ex/amateur built category, as it requires "a major portion of the aircraft...has been fabricated and assembled" for "education or recreation." An engine swap or panel change don't meet that criterion. R&D cert may mot give you the freedom an ex/ab cert gives you regarding flight area, mx, etc, but like ex/ab it is not intended to subvert the part 23 process, it is intended to support it.

Nauga,
who is not looking for a loophole
 
blasphemy!

"I feel too free, I think I'll put on a straight jacket"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top