4 seat kits. What's out there?

[wayne]

You were flying 4 FAA sized adults with full gas and bags in an Arrow?

Why do the tanks have to be full? Fortunately that Arrow only had 48 gallon tanks, so even full it had 700 lbs of full-fuel payload. Four people at 170 lbs each would then leave only 20 lbs for stuff. That wouldn't be enough luggage for most groups of four, even for a weekend.

I was the only one that heavy, and a little more. My wife is 5' 5" and slender. Our two daughters, both athletic and rather light. So we had plenty of room for luggage. At times my wife and I were just over 300 lbs total. Early on in the Arrow I think the four of us were right around 500 lbs total. I'm out of running/triathlon shape right now and my wife isn't playing as much tennis as usual, so we're a bit heavier now. The youngest is a senior in college, so we don't fly the four of us around together much any more.

 

[Velocity173]

Why do the tanks have to be full? Fortunately that Arrow only had 48 gallon tanks, so even full it had 700 lbs of full-fuel payload. Four people at 170 lbs each would then leave only 20 lbs for stuff. That wouldn't be enough luggage for most groups of four, even for a weekend.

I was the only one that heavy, and a little more. My wife is 5' 5" and slender. Our two daughters, both athletic and rather light. So we had plenty of room for luggage. At times my wife and I were just over 300 lbs total. Early on in the Arrow I think the four of us were right around 500 lbs total. I'm out of running/triathlon shape right now and my wife isn't playing as much tennis as usual, so we're a bit heavier now. The youngest is a senior in college, so we don't fly the four of us around together much any more.

Well yeah with kids in the back that works. What I’m getting at is, most of these singles aren’t true (170lb) 4 place aircraft. A typical Arrow will have about a 600-650 lb payload with full fuel. If you put 4 full sized adults in, something has got to give. Either you aren’t filling up and not going vary far or the bags aren’t going. With 4 people on an over night trip, you can bet the 200 lb baggage area limit will be met, further reducing the amount of fuel.

In reality they're a 3 adult place, full fuel and bags. So in a Velocity for instance, what bags can’t fit in the strakes and behind the back seat, you could put on the open seat. In that configuration I don’t see the need of another separate baggage compartment.

 

[wayne]

With 4 people on an over night trip, you can bet the 200 lb baggage area limit will be met, further reducing the amount of fuel.

200 lbs of luggage for an overnight trip!?!

Man, I'd hate to see what you bring on a two week trip to Europe.

A weekend trip for the four of us might be 40 or 50 lbs of luggage total, and a lot of that is overhead (bags/carry-ons, dopp kit). So, for a week it doesn't go up much unless there is a formal event or we're going skiing. We regularly go on week long trips in the summer with 4 light carry-on bags; one for each of us; in the 80-100 lbs range, total. We'll do two week trips in Europe with one checked bag and backpack each; and the checked bag doesn't have excess weight charges.

Yeah, we pack light.

 

[Velocity173]

200 lbs of luggage for an overnight trip!?!

Man, I'd hate to see what you bring on a two week trip to Europe.

A weekend trip for the four of us might be 40 or 50 lbs of luggage total, and a lot of that is overhead (bags/carry-ons, dopp kit). So, for a week it doesn't go up much unless there is a formal event or we're going skiing. We regularly go on week long trips in the summer with 4 light carry-on bags; one for each of us; in the 80-100 lbs range, total. We'll do two week trips in Europe with one checked bag and backpack each; and the checked bag doesn't have excess weight charges.

Yeah, we pack light.

Well, I guess 200 lbs for 4 people would be exaggerating a bit. I had to worse case it.

 

[Bill Greenwood]

I have some friends who flew a Mooney M 20J all around the U S with 4 big people, he's about 6'2, she 5'9 and two good sized teenagers. One thing they did is they didn't take any suitcases at all, they had their clothes just folded and filling up any space they had in the plane. It worked. The next 2 years they sailed around the world in a sailboat,think it was about 35 feet.

 

[Shuswap BC]

200 lbs of luggage would be for a 9 year round the world voyage maybe. The girlfriend and I went on a two week motorcycle trip last year, we strapped a few things to the bike, she hopped on behind me, and away we went. My job takes me on a 4 day trip monthly where i fly to 4 different towns, a small backpack carries everything I need with room to spare, I will guess it weighs about 6 lbs maximum.

 

[Volzalum]

They seem to go together quicker than the RV10's. At least from looking at various build blogs, that seems to be the case.

I think you can built the entire Sling TSI at the TSI location too, I think with assistance from manufacturer.

 

[Stan Cooper]

The December issue of AOPA Pilot has an article comparing the fixed gear 182T to the RV10, and the RV10 was the hands down winner in climb rate, cruise speed, and roll rate. Useful load is similar.

I want.

 

[Datadriver]

Currently RV10 kit is about $55K. Add here your engine $35-45K

Where can I buy an engine for an RV10 for 35k?

 

[tsts4]

Where can I buy an engine for an RV10 for 35k?

Theoretically possible if you can find a good C4B5 core and have a shop do a rebuild. However, IMO best just to up the estimate by $10K-$15K whether buying new or having a reputable shop do a complete re-build on a core.

 

[RussR]

The December issue of AOPA Pilot has an article comparing the fixed gear 182T to the RV10, and the RV10 was the hands down winner in climb rate, cruise speed, and roll rate. Useful load is similar.

I want.

I found that to be about the most ridiculous comparison article. Let's see, the RV-10 has 30 more hp and weighs less. Was the outcome any surprise to anybody?

I thought it was the magazine equivalent of click-bait.

 

[kyleb]

Where can I buy an engine for an RV10 for 35k?

I looked pretty hard at buying a core and rebuilding it myself. All in, the core, machining, new cylinders, followers, cam, and accessories were gonna come to $24K or thereabouts. So $35k is very doable, but most shops will charge more to cover their overhead and deliver a profit.

 

[steingar]

Personally, I think building and airplane because you want an airplane is kinda dumb. Lots of airplanes out there already, plenty do what experimentals do. If you want to build an airplane because you want to build an airplane, more power to you.

It does make sense to get an experimental if you're that attached to wrenching. I'm not that attached, I make more than airplane mechanics. But if you are, experimental aircraft make really good sense, and parts are cheaper. But if you're building an airplane just because you want airplane X, I think it is pretty misguided. Once you get done it won't be worth much more than the kit and your other materials. Your assembly efforts are pretty much free labor. yes, you get the airplane you want the way you want it. But you can purchase an extant example and make it the way you want it for far less effort.

 

[Bill Watson]

Personally, I think building and airplane because you want an airplane is kinda dumb. Lots of airplanes out there already, plenty do what experimentals do. If you want to build an airplane because you want to build an airplane, more power to you.

It does make sense to get an experimental if you're that attached to wrenching. I'm not that attached, I make more than airplane mechanics. But if you are, experimental aircraft make really good sense, and parts are cheaper. But if you're building an airplane just because you want airplane X, I think it is pretty misguided. Once you get done it won't be worth much more than the kit and your other materials. Your assembly efforts are pretty much free labor. yes, you get the airplane you want the way you want it. But you can purchase an extant example and make it the way you want it for far less effort.

Well, I built a ‘10 because I wanted one to fly. I had been looking at building my next aircraft because I wanted the learning experience and it was the only way I would ever be willing to do some serious wrenching. Because of the field I lived on, I narrowed my search to the RVs but my wife insisted on a 4 place after owning the Maule. A 4 place is perfect for 2 people and all the stuff they want to haul. Then the ‘10 was announced and some started flying.

I envisioned it being my lifetime aircraft -it took exactly 5 years to build from order date (plus 1 year to set up the shop). I put over 120 hours a year on the Maule over that period so it’s not like I wasn’t flying.

It’s been one of the best experiences of my life - both building and putting 1200 hours on it. It’s the plane I dreamed of. I know it inside and out. It has exactly what I wanted in it (3 EFIS screens, dual electric everything, O2, etc). And I’m totally confident working on it - something I never would have been had a bought an extant example.

I retired from a 30+ year business career the same month I completed the ‘10 so there was a lot of life stage planning going into the effort.

Re the ‘10 itself: I recall the Sport Pilot Mag that reviewed it. The review was qualifier free; just a fine aircraft. I like to describe it as “highly evolved”. Van has been designing and producing his line of kit planes for a lifetime. The fact that there are no extra trim tabs, slats, strakes, springs or strange limitations shows he is far up the learning curve. People who fly the sporty 2 seater models may consider the ‘10 stodgy but anyone coming to it from most/all production singles will feel like they are flying a thoroughbred.

Yeah, I like it. It’s not for you though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[hindsight2020]

And it's really the only option out there if you want to be free from fac-built nonsense rules, but can't afford an SR-22. I'm glad to hear the 51% rule can be massaged, though I'd prefer it if it would be eliminated outright and we could dispense with the wink and nod platitudes and just hand our money for a third party assembled experimental at a lower labor cost than fac built. It would also help the supply problem in EAB land, but that's my prognostication only.

 

[steingar]

Yeah, I like it. It’s not for you though.

Actually, I like the Van's just fine. I'd head more toward the 6 or 7, since those would scratch my upside down itch. But lets get serious. Most of those aircraft are expensive, way more than I paid for my Mooney. The Ranger won't do the upside down thing (well, it will, but its really inadvisable) but it will do the speed thing and my wife will fly in it. Mrs. Steingar ain't flying in a Vans, and even if she would there isn't anywhere near enough room for her stuff. What I would have to pay to be flying a ten is far outside my economic ability even if I built one. And if I had that kind of money I'd be looking at a Bo or a Deb or maybe a 201, all of which can keep up with an RV10 and then some. That kind of money buys a lot of airplane.

The key thing is you enjoyed building the airplane. Says me if you enjoy building airplanes you should build the airplane. But if you just want a shiny airplane there are other ways. I just hope I get to see it one of these days.

 

[Volzalum]

So of the current experimental kit-build planes out there, there are currently 3 that scratch my itch with plusses and cons to each. There was a 4th that was in the lead, but after the owner passed away, it is no longer for sale (Aircraft Designs Stallion).
This are in order of price, not ordered by my preference:
1) RV-10 (plusses-good support in building, decent space and useful load; cons-Vne is 200 KTAS (based on TAS not IAS due to flutter concerns) doesn't allow turbos for my preferred missions in the upper mid-teens)
2) RAI-6 (plusses-Vne is 240 KIAS so turbo is viable for upper mid-teens, good useful load, only moderately expensive more than RV-10; cons-Not many flying so user base is lacking)
3) Mako (plusses-speed, cons-costs double to triple the other two)

 

[donjohnston]

Says me if you enjoy building airplanes you should build the airplane. But if you just want a shiny airplane there are other ways. I just hope I get to see it one of these days.

“Other ways”? If by “other ways” you mean spend lots of money then you’re absolutely right.

I couldn’t find a newer 200kt, 4 seat airplane with current avionics that I could come close to affording. Low maintenance cost is icing on the cake.

 

[Clip4]

Yep. I expect RV to be closer to 250K. Especially with BRS.

I guess TSI is faster at altitude, but I’d think RV has more performance below 10000. What do you mean “build on TSi “?

RV10 @ 250 kts is pineapple dreaming.

 

[Shuswap BC]

I considered building a CC EX3, but after looking closer, decided against it.
If I were to go that route sometime down the road, I would buy one already built and for sale.

 

[Bill Watson]

What I would have to pay to be flying a ten is far outside my economic ability even if I built one. And if I had that kind of money I'd be looking at a Bo or a Deb or maybe a 201, all of which can keep up with an RV10 and then some. That kind of money buys a lot of airplane.

Whatever Mrs Steingar wants must certainly be a bottom line if not ‘the’ bottom line. But no complaints regarding stuff carrying ability from my partner. The 6 or 7 would never work but the ‘10, no problem.

Operational cost and simplicity were selling points as well. Eight years and 1200 hours in, no one has worked on my plane other than me. Given that I have the time, that’s a real bargain.

I can’t defend any numbers here but fixed gear and lack of a turbo are seen as pluses here. It would be faster with retracts (and that’s not an option) but it wouldn’t be cheaper to maintain. I compare my speed and altitude numbers with a turbo’d Bo friend and I’m frankly envious. But he calls the turbo the equivalent of a second engine from a maintenance standpoint, but I wouldn’t know. But I do take some solace in knowing my engine is just loafing along at high altitude cruise and I’m guessing that reduces costs a bit.

Can you run a 201, Bo or Deb for what I run my ‘10 at? I don’t thinks so but don’t really know.

My next project is adding 15 gallons to the 60 gallon tanks. I rarely if ever have wanted more range but I’ve been planning a long trip south of the border and feel that I need that extra 15.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Crashnburn]

Whatever Mrs Steingar wants must certainly be a bottom line if not ‘the’ bottom line. But no complaints regarding stuff carrying ability from my partner. The 6 or 7 would never work but the ‘10, no problem.

Operational cost and simplicity were selling points as well. Eight years and 1200 hours in, no one has worked on my plane other than me. Given that I have the time, that’s a real bargain.

I can’t defend any numbers here but fixed gear and lack of a turbo are seen as pluses here. It would be faster with retracts (and that’s not an option) but it wouldn’t be cheaper to maintain. I compare my speed and altitude numbers with a turbo’d Bo friend and I’m frankly envious. But he calls the turbo the equivalent of a second engine from a maintenance standpoint, but I wouldn’t know. But I do take some solace in knowing my engine is just loafing along at high altitude cruise and I’m guessing that reduces costs a bit.

Can you run a 201, Bo or Deb for what I run my ‘10 at? I don’t thinks so but don’t really know.

My next project is adding 15 gallons to the 60 gallon tanks. I rarely if ever have wanted more range but I’ve been planning a long trip south of the border and feel that I need that extra 15.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

So far, it's vaporware, but theoretically, there will be a Sling Tsi High Wing Kit for sale in 2021. You can find it just by using the above for search terms. It's supposed to have a wider fuselage than the low wing Tsi, and the carbon fuselage should make it lighter and stronger (more useful load).

For learning, I'm High/Low wing agnostic, but for one I own, it has to be high wing (unless it's a canard).

 

[CJones]

My next project is adding 15 gallons to the 60 gallon tanks. I rarely if ever have wanted more range but I’ve been planning a long trip south of the border and feel that I need that extra 15.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

That would be a nice addition. It's 4hrs no-wind from here to Iowa (annual summer and holiday trip). It's RIGHT on the edge of what I feel comfortable with fuel-wise, so we always add a fuel stop enroute. I'm pretty sure I could do it fine as-is, but having the extra 15gal of weight sloshing in the tanks would make it a much easier decision for sure.

 

[kyleb]

Personally, I think building and airplane because you want an airplane is kinda dumb. Lots of airplanes out there already, plenty do what experimentals do. If you want to build an airplane because you want to build an airplane, more power to you.

One of the advantages of building it yourself is that you're never beholden to anyone else once you have the repairman's certificate. You wanna do an engine swap? No waiting on the local A&P or IA to finish his/her other projects. You wanna dedicate the weekend to doing your condition inspection, great, you'll be done in a couple of days, not on the mechanic's schedule. OTOH, if you don't like wrenching (And it does get old sometimes - Full time job, family, house, dog, airplane is broke, not enough hours to deal with all of it is a drag.), there's no advantage there.

 

[Bill Watson]

That would be a nice addition. It's 4hrs no-wind from here to Iowa (annual summer and holiday trip). It's RIGHT on the edge of what I feel comfortable with fuel-wise, so we always add a fuel stop enroute. I'm pretty sure I could do it fine as-is, but having the extra 15gal of weight sloshing in the tanks would make it a much easier decision for sure.

I’m curious as to whether you’ve balanced your injectors and run LOP? You can certainly add knots burning more fuel (LOP or ROP) but the way I run, I can plan 5 hours + a 45min reserve if I can run it at 9k or above for those long legs.

Even though it will feel good on those max legs trips,I doubt whether I’ll even put any fuel in the 15 gal tanks except for those exceptional legs. Four hours is about as far as I need/want to go and that’s real comfortable in the ‘10 relative to reserves.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Stan Cooper]

One of the advantages of building it yourself is that you're never beholden to anyone else once you have the repairman's certificate.

When I bought my SLSA, I worked with a DAR and converted the certification to experimental (ELSA) so I could perform my own maintenance and modifications, then took the 16 hour light sport repairman - inspection class and got my LSR-I certificate so I can do my own condition inspections. I went BasicMed in May, 2017, so I could fly bigger airplanes and was offered my old 172 at a great price, but decided to keep my LSA since I'm "never beholden to anyone else" and cost of ownership is a fraction of what it would be with the 172.

 

[hindsight2020]

When I bought my SLSA, I worked with a DAR and converted the certification to experimental (ELSA) so I could perform my own maintenance and modifications, then took the 16 hour light sport repairman - inspection class and got my LSRI certificate so I can do my own condition inspections. I went BasicMed in May, 2017, so I could fly bigger airplanes and was offered my old 172 at a great price, but decided to keep my LSA since I'm "never beholden to anyone else" and cost of ownership is a fraction of what it would be with the 172.

Yet I ask to do the same with a piddly 2650# normal category clap trap, and everybody loses their mind.....

 

[Kevin Holbrook]

RV10 @ 250 kts is pineapple dreaming.

"RV-10 @ 250K means RV-10 @ $250,000, **NOT** RV-10 @ 250 knots/hr

 

[Stan Cooper]

knots/hr?

 

[Kenny Phillips]

You were flying 4 FAA sized adults with full gas and bags in an Arrow?

What is today's "FAA-sized" adult? A buck seventy seems a little low, if it's still that; our group of four totals 800+ sans luggage, and that includes two women.

 

[Shuswap BC]

What is today's "FAA-sized" adult? A buck seventy seems a little low, if it's still that; our group of four totals 800+ sans luggage, and that includes two women.

Girlfriend and I combined, are under 300 lbs, if my adult daughter joins us, the three of us are 401 lbs.

 

[RussR]

knots/hr?

It's a rate of acceleration, equal to .00047 ft/s^2, or about .000015 g. Pretty standard unit, I think, no?

 

[Stan Cooper]

It's a rate of acceleration, equal to .00047 ft/s^2, or about .000015 g. Pretty standard unit, I think, no?

The common definition of a knot is one nautical mile per hour. Knots per hour is redundant, no?

 

[hindsight2020]

@RussR was being sarcastic. The original poster was having a lot of trouble with units, 2 posts in a row to be exact. Probably typing while waiting on muffins to come out the oven. Hamburger Helper hands is a real thing; my students suffer from it when task saturated

 

[Stan Cooper]

@RussR was being sarcastic. The original poster was having a lot of trouble with units, 2 posts in a row to be exact. Probably typing while waiting on muffins to come out the oven. Hamburger Helper hands is a real thing; my students suffer from it when task saturated

Went right over me.. Zoom.

 

[BrianNC]

I have some friends who flew a Mooney M 20J all around the U S with 4 big people, he's about 6'2, she 5'9 and two good sized teenagers. One thing they did is they didn't take any suitcases at all, they had their clothes just folded and filling up any space they had in the plane. It worked. The next 2 years they sailed around the world in a sailboat,think it was about 35 feet.

I know @Lance F posted not too long ago making many trips in his Mooney M20J with four adults, but not sure how long the trips were and baggage.

 

[BrianNC]

The December issue of AOPA Pilot has an article comparing the fixed gear 182T to the RV10, and the RV10 was the hands down winner in climb rate, cruise speed, and roll rate. Useful load is similar.

I want.

 

[BrianNC]

-it took exactly 5 years to build from order date

In your opinion, what's the minimum time one could build an RV10 if they worked pretty much full time or close?

 

[kyleb]

In your opinion, what's the minimum time one could build an RV10 if they worked pretty much full time or close?

How nice does the fit and finish need to be? I think you'll spend 1500-2500 hours on a quickbuild kit, depending on skill and your level of OCD. Any modifications you make will take a ridiculous amount of time. So, if speed of build is important, keep it as close to stock as possible.

 

[Flybuddy]

Saint aviation in Dunnellon Fl. has a builder assist, quick build program for RV10s that meets the 51% rule.