4 place experimentals

Discussion in 'Home Builders and Sport Pilots' started by UngaWunga, May 24, 2017.

  1. bflynn

    bflynn En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,311
    Location:
    Fuquay Varina, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Brian Flynn
    Yes, but it IS only 100hp and therefore unlikely to be a good power plant for a 4 place airplane.

    If I was going to build one, it would be the RV-10 with the biggest engine available.
     
  2. CJones

    CJones En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    4,849
    Location:
    Jawjuh
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    uHaveNoIdea
    RV-10 with IO-540 (260hp) gets you cabin size slightly larger than C-182, 165kts cruise on ~14gph, enough luggage room for a family of four to travel for a 4-5 day trip. Not as 'snappy' as a RV-7, but still has handling stability of RV series and you get the bonus of being able to put the radio stack you want in it without paying 'certified' prices.
     
    bflynn likes this.
  3. unsafervguy

    unsafervguy Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    985
    Location:
    Sw florida
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    bob
    What I don't get is the kit is only about 6k less than the rv-10 and the engine is only a couple grand less and it's 50kts slower? The only winning point is the fuel burn. Game set match rv-10.

    Bob
     
  4. GRG55

    GRG55 En-Route

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,577
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Aztec Flyer
  5. kyleb

    kyleb En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,294
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Drake the Outlaw
    Bo's are nice. But even a nice one like that is a 20 year old airplane. Oh, wait. 30 years old. Complete with 30 year old hinges, wiring, bushings, and everything else. Maintenance will be more expensive than on an experimental, and any upgrades (panel in particular, interior too) will cost you a serious premium in the certified world vs the experimental world.
     
  6. SoCal RV Flyer

    SoCal RV Flyer Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,436
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    SoCal RV Flyer
    And the Bo's retractable landing gear can require serious infusions of cash at annual time too. They're beautiful airplanes, though.
     
  7. GRG55

    GRG55 En-Route

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,577
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Aztec Flyer
    You fly an IO-550 equipped F-33 just once, you'll forget about Sling'in it. ;)
     
  8. Skyrys62

    Skyrys62 Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,278
    Location:
    Owensboro, KY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Skyrys62
    What? wait, am I missing something?
     
  9. kyleb

    kyleb En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,294
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Drake the Outlaw
    Sling? Bwhahaha... I'm a few months from finishing my RV-10. ;-) I have a whole frickn' airplane (except the prop) sitting in various parts of the house. SWMBO is not amused by the garmin glass panel arrayed across the dining room table...
     
    GRG55 likes this.
  10. jaymark6655

    jaymark6655 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    118
    Location:
    Bedford, IN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    jaymark6655
    SLING is up to 150K, that is a IFR finished RV-10!? The whole appeal of the SLING was the price. If they are the same, might as well go RV. I know some of the smaller RVs run MOGAS, so I suspect that the IO-540 can be modified in some way to do the same. Then it becomes purely do you want speed or better fuel consumption. RV goes about 50 knots faster at 75% cruise, but the SLING burns only 6 gph vs ~14 gph. That translates roughly to 21 NM/gal vs 12 NM/gal. I have heard people get closer to 10.5 gph at 160 knots (15 NM/gal) LOP, bet if you slowed that thing down to SLING 4 speeds it would approach similar fuel consumption per mile. I know that everybody just looks at gph, but it makes it really hard to compare two aircraft that fly at very different speeds. At 55% the RV-10 should be still going 156 kts with 9.8 gph and capable of 148 knots with 8.5 gph (16NM/gal and 17 NM/gal), neither of these numbers of are LOP and you are still going quite a bit faster than the SLING. I am not sure you would want to fly an IO-540 around at less than 45% though. Maybe someone that owns an RV could go up and tell us what kind of fuel burn they get at 148 knots LOP and what they could do at 124 knots.
     
  11. kyleb

    kyleb En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,294
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Drake the Outlaw
    Your projected performance numbers should be about right. What is missing (I assume) is load carrying capacity and altitude performance. Most -10's have a useful load of ~1100 lbs, and can easily climb into the oxygen levels. I doubt (but don't know) that the Sling can do that. You can build (probably not buy) an RV-10 for $150k, IFR equipped. By going with a used engine, doing the paint yourself, and not needing a Star Trek panel, you could do it for even less.
     
  12. jaymark6655

    jaymark6655 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    118
    Location:
    Bedford, IN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    jaymark6655
    Sling should be able to climb to 15,000 and can carry 703 lbs (992 useful) with full fuel, RV is 740 lbs (1100 useful) with full fuel and estimated 20,000. Yes, build for 150K; I think I planned 2 10.3" GRT panels everything else I could think to throw in it. Last time I had looked at SLING, I came up with a price tag of 111K.
     
  13. Paulie

    Paulie Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2014
    Messages:
    318
    Location:
    Naples fl
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    paulie
    Better like buying cylinders...