Clip4
Final Approach
Yes, it is the aerodynamics and the RV10 is not an exceptionally clean airplane. The cowling is the first clue. 165 knots with 145 HP (55%) is BS.
Last edited:
The Van’s RV-10 - Is it the perfect airplane?
- Thread starter RyanB
- Start date
Yes, it is the aerodynamics and the RV10 is not an exceptionally clean airplane. The cowling is the first clue. 165 knots with 145 HP (55%) is BS.
Clip4
Final Approach
The wing loading on an M20J is 16.4, with retractable gear, better aerodynamic design from the prop to the tail. It barely will do 165 on 143 Hp.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,528
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
I have an Arrow. I am building an RV-14. The 2.6% of the total hours I have in the Arrow where a person was in the back seat will not be missed. The increased speed (45-60 minutes off my longer trips, depending on how well I build it), safety (due to panel and autopilot, but obviously only after I get some hours to find out how well I built it), and operating expenses (less maintenance, less fuel burned per mile, and owner-performed annuals) will be welcome. I'll also force myself into better tailwheel proficiency by not having an alternative and I can do Sportsman-level aerobatics when I feel the need. I'll also be able to stay in homebuilt camping at Oshkosh, which reportedly has the nicest showers on the field.
With all airplane purchase decisions, the critical first step remains defining the mission. If you don't define your mission before you make a purchase, you will most likely not meet it with your purchase.
tsts4
Pattern Altitude
Is there a point here somewhere? Everyone knows max speed on min HP is Mooney claim to fame -- no argument whatsoever. That didn't stop folks from buying Cessnas, Pipers, Beechs, or building E-ABs. The M20J 201 is not a universally perfect plane either, although for some it might be, just as an SR22, A36, or 182 etc are for others. For me it was the 10. Different strokes for different folks and all that....
Last edited:
Bill Watson
En-Route
I assume you have your tongue firmly in cheek. Speed and range is the heart of the matter. The rest of it is gravy.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Bill Watson
En-Route
Yes, that’s about what I see. Vans numbers are solid and a bit conservative. There factory planes are far from exemplars, they are built by-the-plans, well used, VFR cruisers.
I’m not so sure I believe many owners speed and performance claims, best to fall back on Vans numbers and feel good when you do just a bit better.
Lycoming performance charts: As far as I know, Lycoming still doesn’t really recognize LOP operations do they? The fuel consumption numbers we throw around are dependent on LOP ops which in turn is optimized by injector tuning. Lot’s of variables there. But there is great joy in tuning one’s IO540 so that it purrs burning down through 10gph towards 9gph at altitude!
Yes, and ‘nobody’ runs less than 260hp. RV10!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Clip4
Final Approach
My point is an RV10 cruise speed of 165 Knots with a fuel burn reported by the OP is bunk.
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,554
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
- Two doors.
- Fixed Gear
- Much better visibility. (Visibility and ancient systems are what pushed me away from Comanches, which offer a great value with near-RV performance.
- It is new (and <40% of the cost of a new Arrow)
- The RV can easily climb into the O2 levels, allowing you to avoid most of the non-convective cumulus that is present in the SE during the summer.
- Relatively speaking, airframe, accessory, and interior parts are inexpensive.
- The 30 knot speed difference is big on longer trips, particularly when you factor in bathroom stops and headwinds.
BrianNC
En-Route
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,554
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
So basically everything is better than the Arrow?
Honestly, an Arrow is a different class of aircraft. It is a retract Cherokee with 200 hp. It isn't going to haul as much as far or as fast as something with 60 more HP. The appropriate comparisons to the RV have 6 cylinders - the Bonanza and the Comanche.
BrianNC
En-Route
I've always looked at the RV10 as a 182 fixed gear on steroids. All the additional performance/load/room, etc, that you wished the 182 had after you owned it awhile.
I'd love to have one.
DaleB
Final Approach
Plus, you know... low wing. Way cooler, amiright?
Stingray Don
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
- Location
- Indianapolis, Indiana
- Display Name
Display name:
Stingray Don
Last edited:
Morgan3820
En-Route
My Wife requires the plane to have a back seat. Just as She requires the boat have a T-top. It is the best that I can afford, while having the other toys. End of story. I still say that it is not a bad plane. But whatever. Going fishing this morning, then flying., sailing if the wind picks up
Morgan3820
En-Route
The RV 10 is 28% faster than my Arrow while costing 100% more money. On a 400 mile trip the RV 10 arrives 38 minutes earlier. Is that 38 minutes worth $80-100K? A Mooney 201 will keep up speed wise with the RV 10 for much less money. An Aztec will eat the RV 10 for lunch in speed, range, useful load, redundancy.
I would counter it is not all about speed, range. It is all about value.
Last edited:
Non Compos Mentis
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 319
- Display Name
Display name:
Non Compos Mentis
And the market has spoken.
Grum.Man
En-Route
I really don't think someone who is shopping for a 200k airplane would be interested in a 100k Mooney/Arrow/Aztec... I would go as far as saying value has very little to do with most people's airplane purchase decision. Look at how successful 2-300k cubs have become...
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
Oh chute....
Morgan3820
En-Route
So people look for what they perceive to be the best return for the amount of money they are willing to spend.
Interesting...
Grum.Man
En-Route
Buying a plane has no return on your money unless you are operating it as a business in which case an RV10 would be off the table anyway. People have a plane that fits their wants, needs, and budget and that's what they get. A guy shopping a new Cirrus is not likely to want to build an RV10. A guy looking at a pristine Arrow for 100k isn't going to say to him self..... hm for a another 100k I could have a new RV10. Just as a guy shopping for an RV10 would likely not think to them self "if I only gave up the dual dynon touch screens, fully coupled auto pilot, air conditioning, ease of maintenance and modification, speed, and climb performance I could have an Arrow for 1/2 the price."
Which is funny when completed RV10 dollars can buy an Ovation, Bravo TN V35, or 310 with change left over.
But your still left with the baggage that comes with a certificated aircraft.
Grum.Man
En-Route
Yea the freedom of not ever needing an a&p again, being able to do all your own electronic upgrades at 1/2 price, keeping up with the latest technology. Mission changes and need to TN the engine.... go for it. Want Bush tires on your RV10, if it fits it flies. Would be very hard for me to ever go back..
Morgan3820
En-Route
You have sold me! Find me an EAB that carries 4 plus luggage and dog for under $80k and I am there. Let me know soon please.
Grum.Man
En-Route
Not sure WTH that has to do with this conversation but since you asked.
https://barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?id=1454214&catid=18671
https://barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?id=1466232&catid=18671
Last edited:
Morgan3820
En-Route
Payload of under 800 lbs. I am going to be leaving something behind.
Morgan3820
En-Route
Grum.Man
En-Route
Depending on which Arrow you are talking about it isn't much better.
Grum.Man
En-Route
Ok show me a new certified 4 place airplane that will carry 1k+ lbs at 200 mph for around 200k or less?
The RV-10 seems to be a great all around airplane, but they are not that cheap to build if you consider your time. I talked to two owners and they both said they had roughly $235K into their airplane. I'm hearing 2500 to 3000 hours labor to complete the build. It is less expensive to buy a used one, but you don't inherit the repairman's certificate which is nice to have for annuals and repairs. Plus with no quality control, you hope you had a good builder.
When I sat in the RV-10 at OSH, the front seat area ergonomics reminded me of my Piper Archer which is a good thing. The other RVs are too small and uncomfortable to me. I think there are many certified airplanes that you can buy for half the price. For example, you could get a nicely equipped 235 HP Dakota that is 20 knots slower, but will carry more load.
When I sat in the RV-10 at OSH, the front seat area ergonomics reminded me of my Piper Archer which is a good thing. The other RVs are too small and uncomfortable to me. I think there are many certified airplanes that you can buy for half the price. For example, you could get a nicely equipped 235 HP Dakota that is 20 knots slower, but will carry more load.
Morgan3820
En-Route
Off the top of my head, Baron ,C- 210, twin Comanche, C-310R, several of the Mooneys
Morgan3820
En-Route
I sat in an RV-9 and thought it to be cramped compared to my Arrow. The RV -14 I assume is a better fit for me. I may go look at one as a demonstrator has become available near my Parents.
Still no back seat but the pooch may fit as the baggage area appears the be as large a the one in my Arrow. Sell the Arrow, Add $30k plus a couple of years in my garage and I can go faster.
Last edited:
Grum.Man
En-Route
The only one of those that's still made is a Mooney and you will not touch a new Mooney for even triple the cost of a new RV-10...
Juliet Hotel
En-Route
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Juliet Hotel
2019 Barons are going for under $200k? Sign me up. I won't even be picky about the color.
Morgan3820
En-Route
You got me there. I failed to see the ‘new ‘ requirement.
tsts4
Pattern Altitude
You can still do 100% of the maintenance without the repairman's certificate, you just can't sign off on the condition inspection. As to the price, it all depends. I've got about $165K into mine, but it's built as a daily driver vs a show plane. Builder preference on engine, avionics, interior, and paint make a big difference in the ultimate cost. RV construction is straight forward so any A&P or knowledgeable person could easily ascertain the build quality of a given example.
As far as price, standard certified vs E-AB, again it all depends what you are comparing. A new factory bird is way more expensive than a new or used late model E-AB which is going to be more expensive than a 40 yr old factory bird. Everyone likes to compare these old and usual more complex spam cans to the 10 and trumpet the purchase cost of the used plane, but never the operating and maintenance costs. The fallacy of the purchase price argument is it assumes that E-AB is somehow a cheap way into ownership--generally it ain't except when you compare brand new aircraft to brand new aircraft with similar capabilities. Regardless of certification, a used aircraft is generally going to be less to acquire than a new or late model used aircraft, although not necessarily cheaper to operate.
I built a 10 because it met my mission, had the necessary performance, I wanted the experience of building, and I wanted a new plane. E-AB isn't for everyone. Neither is buying a new factory plane. For me I didn't want something as old as I was even thought it would have been way cheaper. YMMV....
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
"The Van’s RV-10 - Is it the perfect airplane?"
No.
That's why every pilot should have at least three airplanes. A jet for going high and fast, a rag & tube taildragger (C180 acceptable substitute) for going low and slow, and...
...a Warbird, for pickin' up the chicks.
Leather jacket, shades and knockout babes in an RV10?
Isn't that like taking your date to the prom in Granddad's Country Squire station wagon?
The babes you are likely to pick up with a Walter Mitty RV10 are the ones that will be asking you, on the second date, if you installed child seat anchors in the back when you built the plane.
(Did you Millennials study Thurber in school? 
)
(and before you RV10 owners take offense, I do think they are a remarkable airplane for the mission they were intended for
And the child seat anchors should be included in the standard kit imo )
One our Club members has an RV8 (yes, with the 3rd wheel in the right place) he built, and an SR-22 turbo. Raves about both of them.
Another one of our Club members just finished building and flying off the hours on his second RV10 build. He flew the first one quite a bit and then sold it because he decided he needed to do it again to "get it perfect".
You need an RV4 my friend. Seriously! They have to be the best Van's value airplane on the used market. Everyone seems to want to pay up for bigger engines in their RVs, and the 4s now seem somewhat neglected and unloved. @nauga built and flies one iirc.
I'd own one if I was a bit shorter and bit lighter.
Sez the man who filled his 182 with extra fuel tanks to fix that very problem. (just kidding).
No.
That's why every pilot should have at least three airplanes. A jet for going high and fast, a rag & tube taildragger (C180 acceptable substitute) for going low and slow, and...
...a Warbird, for pickin' up the chicks.
Leather jacket, shades and knockout babes in an RV10?
Isn't that like taking your date to the prom in Granddad's Country Squire station wagon?The babes you are likely to pick up with a Walter Mitty RV10 are the ones that will be asking you, on the second date, if you installed child seat anchors in the back when you built the plane.
(Did you Millennials study Thurber in school? )(and before you RV10 owners take offense, I do think they are a remarkable airplane for the mission they were intended for
And the child seat anchors should be included in the standard kit imo )One our Club members has an RV8 (yes, with the 3rd wheel in the right place) he built, and an SR-22 turbo. Raves about both of them.
Another one of our Club members just finished building and flying off the hours on his second RV10 build. He flew the first one quite a bit and then sold it because he decided he needed to do it again to "get it perfect".
if it was acro, then it would be perfect lol
You need an RV4 my friend. Seriously! They have to be the best Van's value airplane on the used market. Everyone seems to want to pay up for bigger engines in their RVs, and the 4s now seem somewhat neglected and unloved. @nauga built and flies one iirc.
I'd own one if I was a bit shorter and bit lighter.
Sez the man who filled his 182 with extra fuel tanks to fix that very problem.
(just kidding).
Last edited:
Katamarino
Pattern Altitude
Sez the man who filled his 182 with extra fuel tanks to fix that very problem.
Totally true
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Close! It was an RV7, found it in a Flying article he wrote! I wasn't going to mention him by name, BUT, since he wrote an article in Flying magazine about his RV7 I'll place the link below.. and incidentally how it handles ice(!) I figured I would share that here
Good read
Incidentally the Cirrus he was flying was the club I was in prior to my current arrangement, it was a nice G5, all the bells and whistles, so that would have been a day to take the Cirrus, and not the Vans it sounds like!
https://www.flyingmag.com/i-learned-about-flying-from-that-my-longest-trip-to-vegas/
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
haha, it's a George Bernard Shaw quote.. I felt it apropos given that I fly something with a parachute