Vans RV-10 Vs. Sling 4

Juliet Hotel said:
One of the first things anyone ever told me about aircraft ownership is its not the cost of buying them, its the cost of flying them. Experimentals tend to be significantly cheaper to maintain. Especially if you're the builder.
Click to expand...

The only thing being the builder does is let you do the annual condition inspection. And any A&P could do it. No idea what a typical annual on an RV runs.
 
donjohnston said:
The only thing being the builder does is let you do the annual condition inspection. And any A&P could do it. No idea what a typical annual on an RV runs.
Click to expand...

Technically true but maintenance is a lot cheaper, especially for a builder, because there are so many options. You can fabricate stuff from scratch, use uncertified parts and generally just do your own work.

It’s the only way I can afford to fly the way I do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
What I’m trying to say is that purchasing an E/AB aircraft allows you to do all the maintenance and make any upgrades. You just can’t do the annual condition inspection.

So owning an experimental that you didn’t build isn’t that much more expensive to maintain than one you did build. And if you factor in that it’s usually a lot cheaper to buy a flying experimental than it is to build one, the savings can cover quite a few annuals.
 
Ray Eaker said:
Correct. TSTS4 was apparently referring to certified aircraft, which require an STC to use MOGAS. You can run anything you want in an experimental and some even use ethanol laced fuel but designed their fuel system around its limitations (not me).
Click to expand...

Yes. But I operate my Lycoming as if it was certified even though it isn’t as I have an uncertified fuel injection system on it. My risk tolerance just isn’t low enough to run anything in mine that Lycoming hasn’t approved even though plenty do as Kyle pointed out.
 
donjohnston said:
What I’m trying to say is that purchasing an E/AB aircraft allows you to do all the maintenance and make any upgrades. You just can’t do the annual condition inspection.

So owning an experimental that you didn’t build isn’t that much more expensive to maintain than one you did build. And if you factor in that it’s usually a lot cheaper to buy a flying experimental than it is to build one, the savings can cover quite a few annuals.
Click to expand...

You are right, buying an already built experimental is the cheapest way to go.

Personally, the path I took included 2 factory built high performance sailplanes, which were certified overseas but experimental here. I did most of the work on them except for annual inspections. Then an SEL aircraft with a standard certificate. I did essentially zero work on it relying on A&Ps for work and inspections.

Then I built my dream airplane an RV10 where I’ve done all work, inspections and flight training. Feels cheap and fully personalized. Nothing sweeter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
donjohnston said:
What I’m trying to say is that purchasing an E/AB aircraft allows you to do all the maintenance and make any upgrades. You just can’t do the annual condition inspection.

So owning an experimental that you didn’t build isn’t that much more expensive to maintain than one you did build. And if you factor in that it’s usually a lot cheaper to buy a flying experimental than it is to build one, the savings can cover quite a few annuals.
Click to expand...
That's true but it assumes a couple of things that won't always be the case. It assumes a buyer with the knowledge base to do all the maintenance themselves. Not all buyers will have that nor should they try in some cases. And it also assumes an airplane that was built exactly the way the buyer wants it thereby eliminating any need or desire for the buyer to do modifications or upgrades. Once you start ripping the panel and interior out to put in what you really want, the cost savings start to disappear. Its not impossible to find that buyer, but at the same time that buyer isn't exactly common IMO.
 
I'm confused. Cabin width is very important to me, but I'm confused about the Sling 4 vs. C172 cabin width. It's my understanding the C-172 cabin is 39" wide, and according to the Sling 4 factory page, its cabin is 1.11 meters wide, which works out to be a touch over 43.7 inches. I don't know what the RV-10's cabin width is.
 
The Sling 4 looks better.. but I agree that these two planes really aren't in the same class, definitely 172 / 182 or 182 / SR22 more like. But they are both decently capable planes in the same "genre" of not your usual Piper / Cessna so I think the comparison is merited

Andrew Morris said:
Sling 4 TSi gettin’ it! Not bad at max throttle
Click to expand...
No, not bad at all! I love the "no intentional spins" lol
 
Crashnburn said:
I'm confused. Cabin width is very important to me, but I'm confused about the Sling 4 vs. C172 cabin width. It's my understanding the C-172 cabin is 39" wide, and according to the Sling 4 factory page, its cabin is 1.11 meters wide, which works out to be a touch over 43.7 inches. I don't know what the RV-10's cabin width is.
Click to expand...

I checked the one in the garage. It is 42.5" clear at the door sill. The doors themselves ar slightly thinner than the door sill, and there's a relief in the door for your elbow, so you could probably claim 44 or 45" if you wanted.
 
kyleb said:
I checked the one in the garage. It is 42.5" clear at the door sill. The doors themselves ar slightly thinner than the door sill, and there's a relief in the door for your elbow, so you could probably claim 44 or 45" if you wanted.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Many years ago I tried on a later 4 seat RV. (I don't remember the model.) On the face of it, it looked like it would be wide enough, but there was a really wide center console that pushed me into the side, and the side had a anti-oil-canning V that poked my bicep. Does the -10 have the wide console, etc.?

I know enough that I need to try on a finished version of whatever kit I'm interested in before I even think about pulling the trigger.
 
Crashnburn said:
Thanks. Many years ago I tried on a later 4 seat RV. (I don't remember the model.) On the face of it, it looked like it would be wide enough, but there was a really wide center console that pushed me into the side, and the side had a anti-oil-canning V that poked my bicep. Does the -10 have the wide console, etc.?

I know enough that I need to try on a finished version of whatever kit I'm interested in before I even think about pulling the trigger.
Click to expand...

The -10 is the only RV with 4 seats. It does have a center console, but I'm not with you on the obstruction that was hitting your bicep. I can't think of one...
 
Crashnburn said:
Does the -10 have the wide console, etc.?
.
Click to expand...
It does if you build it with one. I believe there is a center console in the stock kit. But I've seen pics of interiors where the builders have altered the stock console to make it larger and/or extend it further forward. Stands to reason if you'd need the console a bit smaller or even not there at all, it might be possible to build it that way.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Stands to reason if you'd need the console a bit smaller or even not there at all, it might be possible to build it that way.
Click to expand...

The center console houses the elevator pushrods, the fuel lines and selector, the heating ducts, and a bunch of wiring. Also, hard points for seatbelt attach hardware.

Getting rid of the console isnt impossible, but...
 
kyleb said:
The center console houses the elevator pushrods, the fuel lines and selector, the heating ducts, and a bunch of wiring. Also, hard points for seatbelt attach hardware.

Getting rid of the console isnt impossible, but...
Click to expand...
I thought all that went under the turtle deck between the seats????
 
kyleb said:
The center console houses the elevator pushrods, the fuel lines and selector, the heating ducts, and a bunch of wiring. Also, hard points for seatbelt attach hardware.

Getting rid of the console isnt impossible, but...
Click to expand...

Juliet Hotel said:
I thought all that went under the turtle deck between the seats????
Click to expand...

My thought then was redesigning the plane would add a lot of build time. I still think that.

I saw a quote at Cessna, it's close to this "The only reason for airplanes is speed."

I'm tending toward (at a much later date) the Revolution RAI-6 Foxtrot 4. No need for long range tanks. Three hours cruise, and one hour reserve is plenty; thank you very much. It would be fun to drop a Mazda 13B Renesis (SP) on it, with a turbo charger and PSRU, and get up to 300 HP. That much power would only be useful in takeoff, climb, and racing, though.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I thought all that went under the turtle deck between the seats????
Click to expand...

What I'm calling the center console is the tunnel that runs from the firewall all the way to the rear seats. It is approximately 6" wide and a foot or so deep.
 
kyleb said:
The -10 is the only RV with 4 seats. It does have a center console, but I'm not with you on the obstruction that was hitting your bicep. I can't think of one...
Click to expand...

It's anomaly, but apparently there is an RV-6 that has 4 seats. The two extras face reward.

There are also a few RV retracts. I saw one at Osh right after it did a gear up landing (explain THAT to the insurance company) and then two years later I saw a second one that was for sale.

The joys of Experimentation, right?
 
Ravioli said:
It's anomaly, but apparently there is an RV-6 that has 4 seats. The two extras face reward.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you can legitimately consider it an RV-6 if it has 4 seats and all of the other mods necessary to keep the CG in the right place with two people in a baggage area designed for 100 lbs. It started as an RV-6 kit, but you certainly couldn't build *that* airplane using RV-6 plans.
 
Ravioli said:
Here's the thread with pics. http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=92828&page=2
Click to expand...

Right. It has 4 seats. It has an IO-540. The gross weight is 2100 lbs and the empty weight is 1400 lbs (700 lb useful load on a 4 seater?). Those are not RV-6 spec's or even close.

Richard Vangrunsven labeled his re-winged Stits Playboy an RV-1. He recognized the fact that he was far off enough off of the original design, he should call it something else.
 
kyleb said:
What I'm calling the center console is the tunnel that runs from the firewall all the way to the rear seats. It is approximately 6" wide and a foot or so deep.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong here but I'm assuming what Crashnburn was referring to is the center glove box/console that sit on top of the turtle deck. Seems like if you left that out, you could almost do a bench seat all the way across. Not that you'd want to of course, but the point being if one were looking for a bit more cabin width, leaving out the center box that sit above the turtle deck would allow for butt and elbow expansion room.

Also Crashnburn didn't specify whether the RV10 he sat in was the factory demonstrator or whether it belonged to a builder nor whether it was completed and certified or still under construction. If it was builder plane, who knows what modifications were done. If it was a builder plane still under construction, then even more bets are off in terms of what he actually saw.
 
kyleb said:
Richard Vangrunsven labeled his re-winged Stits Playboy an RV-1. He recognized the fact that he was far off enough off of the original design, he should call it something else.
Click to expand...

What makes that guy some kind of expert on RV's? <-- that be a joke, by the way.

And from the linked thread, this thing was called an RV6 +
 
Crashnburn said:
I'm confused. Cabin width is very important to me, but I'm confused about the Sling 4 vs. C172 cabin width. It's my understanding the C-172 cabin is 39" wide, and according to the Sling 4 factory page, its cabin is 1.11 meters wide, which works out to be a touch over 43.7 inches. I don't know what the RV-10's cabin width is.
Click to expand...
RV-10 should be 48.25" 46" if sitting in the back.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I could be wrong here but I'm assuming what Crashnburn was referring to is the center glove box/console that sit on top of the turtle deck. Seems like if you left that out, you could almost do a bench seat all the way across. Not that you'd want to of course, but the point being if one were looking for a bit more cabin width, leaving out the center box that sit above the turtle deck would allow for butt and elbow expansion room.

Also Crashnburn didn't specify whether the RV10 he sat in was the factory demonstrator or whether it belonged to a builder nor whether it was completed and certified or still under construction. If it was builder plane, who knows what modifications were done. If it was a builder plane still under construction, then even more bets are off in terms of what he actually saw.
Click to expand...
Just ran across this post. The plane was fully built, and signed off by the FAA. It was owned by the builder. As far as I could tell, and I'm no expert, the plane was built according to plans.

I'm sure if the tunnel wasn't there, there would have been plenty of room for me, but I'm guessing the tunnel was there for control cables, and to stiffen the fuselage. At 6'3", 220 lbs., I am nowhere close to being an FAA standard pilot. I have to worry about legroom, headroom, and shoulder room before I even start thinking about useful load.
 
Crashnburn said:
Just ran across this post. The plane was fully built, and signed off by the FAA. It was owned by the builder. As far as I could tell, and I'm no expert, the plane was built according to plans.

I'm sure if the tunnel wasn't there, there would have been plenty of room for me, but I'm guessing the tunnel was there for control cables, and to stiffen the fuselage. At 6'3", 220 lbs., I am nowhere close to being an FAA standard pilot. I have to worry about legroom, headroom, and shoulder room before I even start thinking about useful load.
Click to expand...

Need to separate the ‘tunnel’ from a ‘center console’.

The tunnel is a fundamental part of the design and contains control rods, fuel selector, and heat duct for the rear seats. It rises up to approx the level of the bottom of the seat cushions. It does not impact on thighs, arms, torso or anything else. “No one” modifies this part of the configuration. It does not take away from cabin width - it adds to it in a sense.

A center console is an after-market add-on in all cases. It would fit on top of the tunnel and could extend for and aft as desired. There are several aftermarket versions available. I built a custom console for my ‘10. It can ‘change’ the sense of cabin width because it can impinge on thigh or torso room for big people. Typically it is sized so that it acts as an arm rest, which is a comfortable and welcome mod in many cases.

Going to the rear seats, the tunnel is thinner in the back. So much so that the rear seats feel as spacious, perhaps slightly more spacious than the front even though the sidewall to sidewall distance is less(?). There is less space between the 2 seats than in the front. My cushion set includes inserts to turn the rear seats into a bench. Good for kids I guess but I don’t fly with mine (inserts that is, no kids). The front actually has ‘excess’ space between the seats because of the tunnel which makes the plane feel particularly roomy.

I’m 6’ and 215. It is a very comfortable cockpit for me. The custom console I fabricated for my plane is designed to minimize any potential impact on thigh or torso room while provided an arm rest, iPad mount and O2 tank. Works well for me.
http://www.mykitlog.com/users/category.php?user=mauledriver&project=224&category=8533


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Last edited:
Bill Watson said:
Need to separate the ‘tunnel’ from a ‘center console’.

The tunnel is a fundamental part of the design and contains control rods, fuel selector, and heat duct for the rear seats. It rises up to approx the level of the bottom of the seat cushions. It does not impact on thighs, arms, torso or anything else. “No one” modifies this part of the configuration. It does not take away from cabin width - it adds to it in a sense.

A center console is an after-market add-on in all cases. It would fit on top of the tunnel and could extend for and aft as desired. There are several aftermarket versions available. I built a custom console for my ‘10. It can ‘change’ the sense of cabin width because it can impinge on thigh or torso room for big people. Typically it is sized so that it acts as an arm rest, which is a comfortable and welcome mod in many cases.

Going to the rear seats, the tunnel is thinner in the back. So much so that the rear seats feel as spacious, perhaps slightly more spacious than the front even though the sidewall to sidewall distance is less(?). There is less space between the 2 seats than in the front. My cushion set includes inserts to turn the rear seats into a bench. Good for kids I guess but I don’t fly with mine (inserts that is, no kids). The front actually has ‘excess’ space between the seats because of the tunnel which makes the plane feel particularly roomy.

I’m 6’ and 215. It is a very comfortable cockpit for me. The custom console I fabricated for my plane is designed to minimize any potential impact on thigh or torso room while provided an arm rest, iPad mount and O2 tank. Works well for me.
http://www.mykitlog.com/users/category.php?user=mauledriver&project=224&category=8533


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information. I guess it was the center console that was crowding me.
 
Fallsrider said:
I watched your video of your first flight. That must have been a very satisfying and rewarding day.
Click to expand...

Yes it was though the outcome was never in doubt... due entirely to a wise and talented Tech Advisor.

My EAA Tech Advisor visited my shop maybe 4-5 times during my 5 year build. Even though he lived several hundred yards up the runway from my shop, he quickly decided that, 1) I was doing a decent job, and 2) I didn’t really enjoy getting help.

I’m a heads down and figure it out kind of guy. What I did like was structured hands-on training (a class) followed by the application new skills in the relaxing confines of my shop.

At one point in the build I asked him for help having misaligned my two elevator halves. My Advisor is a bit of a perfectionist so he not only told me how it should be fixed, but he retired to his machine shop and fixed it with as little interaction with me as possible. I think we had a few things in common.

At final flight time, he insisted on a final preflight inspection long after I was ‘ready to fly it’. He found a loose fuel fitting! He then sent me over to a corner of the hangar, pulled out a wrench and checked every single fuel fitting on the aircraft. Turned out I had only hand tightened the whole system when doing the ‘final install’ some months previous.

Probably saved my life if not just the plane and the flight. Other than that, it all went off without a hitch. 1100 hours and 8 years later, best thing I ever did!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Bill Watson said:
Yes it was though the outcome was never in doubt... due entirely to a wise and talented Tech Advisor.

My EAA Tech Advisor visited my shop maybe 4-5 times during my 5 year build. Even though he lived several hundred yards up the runway from my shop, he quickly decided that, 1) I was doing a decent job, and 2) I didn’t really enjoy getting help.

I’m a heads down and figure it out kind of guy. What I did like was structured hands-on training (a class) followed by the application new skills in the relaxing confines of my shop.

At one point in the build I asked him for help having misaligned my two elevator halves. My Advisor is a bit of a perfectionist so he not only told me how it should be fixed, but he retired to his machine shop and fixed it with as little interaction with me as possible. I think we had a few things in common.

At final flight time, he insisted on a final preflight inspection long after I was ‘ready to fly it’. He found a loose fuel fitting! He then sent me over to a corner of the hangar, pulled out a wrench and checked every single fuel fitting on the aircraft. Turned out I had only hand tightened the whole system when doing the ‘final install’ some months previous.

Probably saved my life if not just the plane and the flight. Other than that, it all went off without a hitch. 1100 hours and 8 years later, best thing I ever did!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
That’s a great little story.
Thanks for sharing that with us.
 
I just had my first flight last week in my 10. Compared to the 10 I previously flew I'm a bit more 'snug' in mine. I have the full Aerosport interior with the center console. I found myself on my first landing slamming the stick into my thighs... I was also a tad nervous so was probably over controlling.

IMG_0876%25281%2529.jpg
 
OkieAviator said:
I just had my first flight last week in my 10. Compared to the 10 I previously flew I'm a bit more 'snug' in mine. I have the full Aerosport interior with the center console. I found myself on my first landing slamming the stick into my thighs... I was also a tad nervous so was probably over controlling.
Click to expand...

What was the empty weight of your -10 with that panel and interior? I assume it is fully painted too?
 
OkieAviator said:
I just had my first flight last week in my 10. Compared to the 10 I previously flew I'm a bit more 'snug' in mine. I have the full Aerosport interior with the center console. I found myself on my first landing slamming the stick into my thighs... I was also a tad nervous so was probably over controlling.
Click to expand...
That’s a great looking interior!

I probably would have gone that route if the Aerosport interior was available at the time. Makes the ‘10 a real looker. But it sounds like you give up a bit of space.

It’s funny how the factory demonstrator really reflects Van’s engineering orientation. No interior panels - just paint on metal. You can’t add lightness I guess but it was a bit too spartan for me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I predict they will sell extremely few unless and until they do something about the visible lines on fuselage. Easy to think your customers won't care about something like that but they will.
Click to expand...

I agree they will sell very few but the installation looks pretty cool to me, if you are so inclined.

I just don’t think that many home builders of such a robust airplane (as opposed to an ultralight) will be that interested. You couldn’t give me one for free.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Bill Watson said:
I agree they will sell very few but the installation looks pretty cool to me, if you are so inclined.

I just don’t think that many home builders of such a robust airplane (as opposed to an ultralight) will be that interested. You couldn’t give me one for free.


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

So I gather you just don’t bother with seatbelts in robust cars and planes ?

Remember somebody mentioning a story about a guy asking Van why they didn’t offer a brs with their planes and his response was “because we sell our planes to pilots”

What a macho-dick/luddite response it was ... why bother with additional safety equipment , we are not planning to crash after all .. right ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top