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

RyanB

RyanB

Super Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
16,198
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Display Name
Display name:
Ryan
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?

F605B9AF-3C74-4ACD-A314-296D4BC63CC1.jpeg A06FB8EA-1808-4DD3-95DB-B4B8F4E9B346.jpeg
https://www.vansaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/10FLY-2-19-Screen.pdf
 
Yeah.. I've been drooling over those lately, too. And the RV9A... and the RV12 ... sigh..
 
The "total performance" thing rings so true about Van's planes...maybe they don't ace any one category, but they check a whole lot of boxes!
 
Yes it is! If I had 200k or the drive to build one I'd have one.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
I was stoked when the RV-10 first came out. But building an airplane is not in the cards for me.
Click to expand...

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...
 
I’ve been flying a ‘10 for almost 8 years. I had started to look at a kit plane to build as a follow-on to my 180hp tailwheel Maule. The Lancair and the Glasair were candidates because I was somewhat famliar with composites but I live on a grass strip and the people familiar with those planes weren’t encouraging.

All indicators were pointing towards Vans and the RV7 was looking good except for the fact that it was a 2 place airplane. My wife had done enough research years before to understand that a 2 place aircraft is really a 1 place aircraft with a reasonable amount of baggage. And most low end 4 place aircraft were great 2 place machines with good storage. That’s what led us to the Maule which can actually haul 4 trim people and a bunch of luggage.. but just barely.

But 117 knots, which turned into 113 after 1500 hours, was slow and limiting. Vans 150+ knot machines were looking good... we’d just have to learn to travel with a light footprint.

Then the RV10 was announced and it looked like the perfect plane. A review in Kitplanes or Sport Aviation where they found no real flaws in the planes performance or handling sealed the deal. I already understood that Van was an engineer at heart. The numbers were accurate and the kits had become increasingly sophisticated and highly evolved. With the quick build options on top of CNC pre-drilled holes it looked doable. The reputation of the Lyc IO-540 was comforting. Moving Maule sized loads with 90 extra horses sounded like exactly what this IFR pilot was looking for. Extra horses are surprisingly enabling in weather.

Elegant simplicity is what I saw. Normal aspiration, fixed gear, roomy interior and good looks. 2009 vintage experimental avionics ended up exceeeding my dreams in both cost and capability. With minor upgrades, they still do 10 years later.

Getting excited yet?

79c814cb4ced0ff9ad88ce6662fa7edb.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
A remarkably impressive airplane.. the lancair Mako is also very impressive

and yes, these are basically serious just without the insane price tag and some assembly required
 
^Cirrus, not serious. POS autocorrect
 
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...
True enough but that’s the Vans way.

Reality in experimental land is that gross weight is whatever you declare.

The 60 gallon tanks exceed my desire for longest legs but you can add more if you have the skills. The ONLY time I’ve wanted more was flying to the BVIs (British Virgin Islands) where a stop in the TCIs (Turks & Caicos) is practically mandated. A PR or non-stop option would have been welcomed.

Baggage ends up being a volume problem rather than a weight and CG issue.

Simplicity of operation is worth a lot. I can fill all 4 seats and fill the baggage compartment knowing that everyone will be comfortable, performance is still more than adequate even on a hot day, and the CG will be within limits. Just don’t put 2 people in the back with the bags loaded before getting a passenger in a front seat or the tail will slowly sink to the ground.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
I would love to own a 10. We just couldn’t quite afford the price tag along with using more gas and maintenance over the 9A that we bought. The 9 has been epic. It feels so good to fly! I am sure the 10 is as good!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
RV10 owner/operator secrets:

- Per my experience, it will do exactly 172 Knots, aka 200 Statue MPH, with everything all out but no one ever does that. Except that I did that 2 days ago when Orlando approach asked if I could do 140 knots to stay 3 mins ahead of some trailing traffic. I said I could before realized that 140 IAS equaled exactly 172 TAS at my altitude (9k) on that day. I tweeked everything and achieved 140 Knots IAS or 172 TAS as promised at close to 14+ GPH. But 155 to 162 knots TAS at 10 to 11.5 GPH is where I live.

- The front seats are damn comfortable. The back seats even more so by many accounts but I’ve never had a back seat ride so no confirmation is available.

- Aluminum work is easy with a minimal amount of instruction. Composite work is a bit harder and there’s a good bit of it. It’s not a core competency of Vans - but they have gotten a lot better than when I built mine. And I’ve grown to love it.

- The wheel nacelles and especially the gear legs add roughly 18 knots to the TAS. It’s recommended that they be left off for engine break-in. When you put them on, things get impressive.

- It is an incredibly easy plane to fly and fly well. After flying the somewhat idiosyncratic Maule, I did nothing but greasers for over a year and a 150 hours of flying. I bounce or lightly bang a landing every so often now but it’s a plane that makes you look good.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Bill Watson said:
All indicators were pointing towards Vans and the RV7 was looking good except for the fact that it was a 2 place airplane. My wife had done enough research years before to understand that a 2 place aircraft is really a 1 place aircraft with a reasonable amount of baggage.
Click to expand...

Dunno about that...my -9A will hold two 200-lb occupants, full fuel and 100 lb. of baggage and come in at my (conservative) max gross of 1750 lb. Cg is near-ish the aft limit when I get down to an hour's worth of fuel, but it handles beautifully in this configuration.

Bill Watson said:
Just don’t put 2 people in the back with the bags loaded before getting a passenger in a front seat or the tail will slowly sink to the ground.
Click to expand...
The -9A has a similar issue when loaded as above. You need to get in one at a time; two people simultaneously on the steps will result in a tail strike! Fortunately, it just lightly scraped up the bottom cap of the rudder.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Dunno about that...my -9A will hold two 200-lb occupants, full fuel and 100 lb. of baggage and come in at my (conservative) max gross of 1750 lb. Cg is near-ish the aft limit when I get down to an hour's worth of fuel, but it handles beautifully in this configuration.

The -9A has a similar issue when loaded as above. You need to get in one at a time; two people simultaneously on the steps will result in a tail strike! Fortunately, it just lightly scraped up the bottom cap of the rudder.
Click to expand...

That can be fixed during construction by putting the little wheel where it belongs, on the back end,
 
The only issue i see with them is that they’re a Vans aircraft which means there’s hundreds of them out there (the Cessna of the experimental world). If I’m going to build something I want it to be unique.

Then again there’s a reason there are so many of them. They’re great aircraft.
 
Unique in the experimental world seems to often translate into decreased parts support, fewer with the knowledge to properly maintain them, fewer potential buyers at resale time, and decreased value in spite of often being good performers.
 
Unique is nice however it translates into a lack of support and huge insurance bills. Vans RV’s insure for Cessna prices!
 
Hard to beat an RV10 but I’ve never been a big fan of RVs. They’re ok, but if I was in the market for a 4 seater, I’d really go with a used Velocity XL for the same price and do 200+ ktas. If I truly needed short field performance then I’d probably go with an old SR22 at roughly the same cost. Prefer the looks of a Cirrus and having a parachute is always nice...especially with a Continental up front. :D

Since I hardly ever have anyone in the back, to me the perfect plane (mid $100K range) be a Glasair III. 220-230kts, long range, acro, easy to get parts and sexy.
 
RV10 is probably the best jack of all trades on the market. I personally don't find any of the RV's attractive but then again you don't see much of the outside while you are flying it. The 10 is a pretty extensive build with tons of parts. A turbo w/ AC would be ideal if you didn't need to fill all the seats all the time.
 
I looked at them, but realized there's no way I want to put that much work into it. I'd rather be flying. They are very similar to an SR22. Lighter and little smaller (~6' shorter wing span, which would help getting them into older/smaller t-hangars). I'm not fond of the stick and I know my wife would hate that part. She loves the side stick on the SR22 or the throw-over yoke on the Baron, so there's nothing in front of her.

They look like great planes if it fits what you want.
 
As another data point I'm also a builder/owner. I've been flying mine for 5 years -- just finishing up the annual condition inspection as a matter of fact. Is it perfect, no but as others have posted it's a very good all-around performer. The airfoil is really fantastic and accounts for the wide-speed range and awesome handling. It has its quirks and shortcomings (the doors are lame, the bottom cowl is PITA to put on/take off, etc), but its positives (online/community support, honest performance, straightforward construction, etc) far outweigh the negatives. It's a good choice for a 4-seater if building is an option or if you want a newish airframe and don't want to spend north of half a mil or for something that's 40 years old.

18275175_10211473058613488_3689739883261728764_n (3).jpg
 
Last edited:
The very few RV-10's I've seen could have better composite craftsmanship concerning the area around the the windscreen. They are also a great deal more effort to build from I see over the 2 place. Great plane though. The RV-14 2 place looks incredible and a real cabin space improvement over the 7.

-David
 
Bill Watson said:
Baggage ends up being a volume problem rather than a weight and CG issue.
Click to expand...
I've crawled in/around a couple of RV10s and I concur. You could easily haul 4 adults and 4 bricks of lead but fitting 4 adults and 4 sleeping bags would be a problem. Plenty of capacity in terms of pounds but not in terms of cubic inches. The Velocity seems to have a similar problem.
 
asicer said:
I've crawled in/around a couple of RV10s and I concur. You could easily haul 4 adults and 4 bricks of lead but fitting 4 adults and 4 sleeping bags would be a problem. Plenty of capacity in terms of pounds but not in terms of cubic inches. The Velocity seems to have a similar problem.
Click to expand...

I kinda disagree. My useful load is 1050. Loading 4 full sized adults with full tanks basically leaves me with zero baggage. That said we've taken both our kids when they were in high school to OSH with all the associated gear and what not and managed to fit it all in. I'm always more concerned with weight than cube when it comes to loading crap into the plane. CG has never been an issue.
 
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...
True.. from a purely pragmatic sense. But how often are people flying for more than 4 hrs anyway? I figure, as long as the plane has about 5 hrs worth of gas then larger tanks are less necessary. Many people have a fetish over flying with full tanks, or tanks near full (I'm not one of them, I'm a tabs guy), but if you figure your plane only *needs* 80 gallons to fly 5 hrs then it's a cool selling point to many people to say "fill the tanks, and fill the seats!" - people brag about that with the 182

skier said:
The only issue i see with them is that they’re a Vans aircraft which means there’s hundreds of them out there (the Cessna of the experimental world). If I’m going to build something I want it to be unique.

Then again there’s a reason there are so many of them. They’re great aircraft.
Click to expand...
That's my thing exactly. The Vans are incredible aircraft, but if you're going to go EA there's a certain coolness to having something unique, I have a thing for the Velocity Twin, primarily because pushers are cool, the "flying wing" type design is cool, and who else has a twin engine homebuilt?!

Back on topic though, the handful of people I've known with some variation of Vans aircraft have absolutely adored them, so clearly they're doing something right and are great planes to fly. There's a guy in San Diego who splits his time flying his Vans (not sure which, it is smaller) and his Cirrus, so clearly it also appeals to a wide audience
 
I thought the doors and the latch mechanisms were a little wonky when I sat in the 10 at the factory. If I'm not mistaken, there have been a few fatals that were linked to doors departing the plane in flight. But otherwise its a plane that has a lot going for it. There aren't a ton of choices in experimentals if you need 4 seats. I think its a safe bet the RV10 is far and away the most popular example out there and for good reason. Very roomy with very good performance numbers. And possibly most importantly for those wanting to actually put people in the seats, as long you have a budget in the $200k range or better it doesn't end up looking like something you cobbled together in your basement with old dryer parts and duct tape.

The Sonex line are interesting planes and look cheap and easy to build. But even the best examples look like something you built yourself with spare parts. I don't think my wife would be too keen on flying something like that. And even if she was, her family would take a dim view on it.
 
Last edited:
Juliet Hotel said:
I thought the doors and the latch mechanisms were a little wonky when I sat in the 10 at the factory. If I'm not mistaken, there have been a few fatals that were linked to doors departing the plane in flight.
Click to expand...

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.

Mike Blackburn said:
Sling TSi. #justsaying
Click to expand...

I sat in a Sling at last year's OSH. Nice airplanes but the cabin is smaller and baggage space is smaller still but it's certainly an option if looking for a 4-place E-AB. However, IMO comparing a Sling to an RV-10 is like comparing a 172 to a 182.
 
tsts4 said:
I sat in a Sling at last year's OSH. Nice airplanes but the cabin is smaller and baggage space is smaller still but it's certainly an option if looking for a 4-place E-AB. However, IMO comparing a Sling to an RV-10 is like comparing a 172 to a 182.
Click to expand...

You’re probably right. Useful load is broadly similar but the baggage space in the Sling4 airframe is pretty sparse.
 
No plane is perfect for everybody. My plane has turned out to be perfect for me and mine.

It’s a transportation machine and we like to travel around. Living on a residential airpark eliminates the trip to the airport leaving only the trip from a distant airport to the destination. It’s an aviation lifestyle that has little to do with aviation. I long ago tired of busting holes in the sky, doing loop de doos, finding new $100 hamburgers and yes, even camping at Oshkosh. My wife and I have non-aviation missions that we pursue with gusto and arrive at in high style.. at least in our eyes!

It’s an affordable way to own and operate a very capable aircraft. More capable that we could afford on the certificated side. Three EFIS screens, 2 axis autopilot that can fly from takeoff to MDA. Synthetic vision, Flight Director, Flight Path Marker, Traffic, Weather, Dual Bus Electrical System with dual Batts and Alternators. Enough excess HP to get on top fast and dodge most weather in the SE US. Now, I do have a buddy with a turbo and deiced Bo’. Getting up there and flying those speeds thru wintry clouds is cool but one has to have some limits, so I just drool on my way to the Bahamas to fish for those Bones.

The Maule was more of an attention getter on most ramps. The handlers at Airventure routinely waved us towards the antiques until we pointed again at our placard. Big city FBOs were consistently ****ed whenever I’d leave it at their front door and they had no way to move that thing with the wheel in the back. But I always appreciated the older line guys that would makes sure to tuck me in a hangar if a storm passed by. Soon I learned that if I parked it out of sight of the front office and didn’t ask for it to be brought out front, I could often avoid service and tie down fees... they just never saw me come or go. I’d just pay for the gas on the way in and disappear on the way out.

While the ‘10 and Vans planes in general may be the Cessnas of EA, being EA amongst all the certified hardware on the ramp is pretty damn cool, even if most pilots think we’re a Cirrus. Passengers freak and my chest swells when I mention we built this thing. Most take a picture of the Experimental warning on the panel.

It’s not aerobatic but it is a fine IFR mount. I file on almost every single flight. The system is easy peasy if you want to get from A to B fast and safe.

Perfect for me, Perfect for us. It’s an option to consider if it’s what you want.

BTW, in the end, I am and will always be a glider pilot but the ‘10 will just have to do for now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top