Lack of 4 seat experimentals?

Challenged

Challenged

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,901
Location
Louisiana
Display Name
Display name:
Challenged
Are there any 4 seat experimentals that can compete in price/performance with older certified aircraft? I love the RV10, but I could practically fly my old plane for the next 20 years for the purchase price alone, based on what I see on controller at least. I only just joined the EAA, so it's not a segment that I know a lot about, but it seems like that is a lacking segment of the experimental market...maybe it's because they can't compete in price with 30 year old airplanes?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 
You can't save money building a plane, what you get is the plane you want.
 
Henning said:
You can't save money building a plane, what you get is the plane you want.
Click to expand...

Well, if you compare newly built homebuilt to new certified, the savings is substantial. But nothing is "cheap".
 
Challenged said:
Are there any 4 seat experimentals that can compete in price/performance with older certified aircraft? ....but it seems like that is a lacking segment of the experimental market... 2
Click to expand...

Until relatively recently, home building was the domain of the "enthusiast" aircraft. Fast and agile, or maybe slow and nostalgic. Those platforms motivated people to build an airplane which fit their aviation dreams. Four seat people movers have never spurred the same passion, and they come at a higher up-front cost in both build time and cost, as well as significantly higher operating expenses.

Over the years, there have been quite a few nice four seat designs, but the two seaters have always outnumbered them substantially.
 
kyleb said:
Until relatively recently, home building was the domain of the "enthusiast" aircraft. Fast and agile, or maybe slow and nostalgic. Those platforms motivated people to build an airplane which fit their aviation dreams. Four seat people movers have never spurred the same passion, and they come at a higher up-front cost in both build time and cost, as well as significantly higher operating expenses.

Over the years, there have been quite a few nice four seat designs, but the two seaters have always outnumbered them substantially.
Click to expand...

Probably supported by the fact most GA hours are flown with one or two seats occupied.
 
Challenged said:
Are there any 4 seat experimentals that can compete in price/performance with older certified aircraft? I love the RV10, but I could practically fly my old plane for the next 20 years for the purchase price alone, based on what I see on controller at least. I only just joined the EAA, so it's not a segment that I know a lot about, but it seems like that is a lacking segment of the experimental market...maybe it's because they can't compete in price with 30 year old airplanes?
Click to expand...

The newer the airplane, generally the higher the price. This holds true for experimental and certified aircraft.

By my reckoning, an experimental of the same vintage and performance capability as a certified aircraft is generally going to be the less expensive of the two. The "problem" that experimentals have is that they are more likely to be of recent vintage. For a fairer comparison be sure to compare airframes of the same year (or at least decade) and similar performance.

As best I can tell, the market appears to also have added a small premium for the advantages that experimentals offer with regard to lower cost maintenance and upgrades, but of course this appears to be offset somewhat by it also discounting due to the unknown quality of construction of any given aircraft.
 
Challenged said:
Are there any 4 seat experimentals that can compete in price/performance with older certified aircraft? I love the RV10, but I could practically fly my old plane for the next 20 years for the purchase price alone, based on what I see on controller at least. I only just joined the EAA, so it's not a segment that I know a lot about, but it seems like that is a lacking segment of the experimental market...maybe it's because they can't compete in price with 30 year old airplanes?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

How can you compare the cost of a 68 VW bug with a 2013 Bugatti. :mad2:

The RV-10 is still going to be worth nearly what you paid for it. :dunno:

I flew my RV-10 out to Laramie and back yesterday and averaged 200mph on 12.5 gph of $3.60 car gas. 1,000 mile round trip, left at 10 back by 5. Try that is a 30 year old spam can. ;)
 
Last edited:
Sure there aren't many experimentals that can compete with 4 seat PA-28s, C-172s, or even a 30yr old Mooney. The only ones I know of are the canards. I'd much rather have the performance of a Cozy or Velocity compared to a 30 yr old production. I'd also take my 165 kt Velocity at half the price of a used 155-160 kt SR-20 anyday. Just maintenance and insurance alone I spend half as much. Even the big four seaters like the VelocityXL and the RV-10 can be had for the price of a 30 yr old Bonanza or a newer SR-20. When it comes down to it, a lot of people just don't feel safe flying in a homebuilt and you'll never convince those people to switch over.
 
Not sure what your definition of "performance" is, but the Zenith CH801 is a 4-seat experimental that has great short-field performance and a useful load that meets/exceeds a lot of 4-seater certified aircraft. You do take a hit in cruise speed, but since the initial and operating costs are less, you can fly it for longer. Perhaps Ben will chime in more about the CH801.
 
I ended up getting a vintage plane going through the same thought process. I wanted to stay around $50-60K, so that automatically limits the market. I looked long and hard at a glasair, but I finally went with my mooney b/c of the 4 seats. Everyone is right, you end up using 1 or 2 seats 95% of the time, but my gut told me to go with the old 4 seater. I'd love to get another 20-30 knots on less fuel burn, but I'm just glad I've got my own plane.
 
I think what our good man Henning is alluding to in his post is that when you put say 50 k into building an experimental that's is likely all you get back when you go to sell it. And sadly that gives you nothing at all for your time in the build process. The exception to this would be a scratch-built design from plans only. Additionally I know of one high net worth individual who sold his experimental for parts only due to fear of potential liability by a future buyer since he was in fact the "manufacturer" of the aircraft.
 
Art VanDelay said:
I think what our good man Henning is alluding to in his post is that when you put say 50 k into building an experimental that's is likely all you get back when you go to sell it. And sadly that gives you nothing at all for your time in the build process. The exception to this would be a scratch-built design from plans only. Additionally I know of one high net worth individual who sold his experimental for parts only due to fear of potential liability by a future buyer since he was in fact the "manufacturer" of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

In the history of aviation, there has not been a single successful liability lawsuit by the new owner or an experimental aircraft or their heirs. Ever. Period. There is more liability selling the parts than selling the whole airplane as a flying plane. Your friend was woefully misinformed, wasted a lot of money, and more importantly increased his liability rather than decrease it.

Yes, I am an experimental aircraft dealer. :D
 
Art VanDelay said:
I think the key word here is "successful". Getting to "unsuccessful" can be a very expensive proposition !
Click to expand...

Taking a perfectly good airplane apart and selling the pieces with the express intent to limit liability will be even more expensive when they are successful. ;)
 
Geico266 said:
Taking a perfectly good airplane apart and selling the pieces with the express intent to limit liability will be even more expensive when they are successful. ;)
Click to expand...

I doubt the guy took it apart. It's extremely common for people to write "for parts only" on the bill of sale of an experimental airplane even though they're accomplishing pretty much nothing by doing so.

Also, writing "for parts only" on a bill of sale does not change the legality or airworthiness of the airplane.
 
jesse said:
I doubt the guy took it apart. It's extremely common for people to write "for parts only" on the bill of sale of an experimental airplane even though they're accomplishing pretty much nothing by doing so.

Also, writing "for parts only" on a bill of sale does not change the legality or airworthiness of the airplane.
Click to expand...

Probably correct, but this is exactly where the liability is increased, not decreased.

I know of a guy that was so worried about liability he took a perfectly good homebuilt and cut it up. :mad2: When I told him he just threw away $30,000 with no liability risk if you use the EAA selling docs he was sick. You can't cure stupid. :no:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
How can you compare the cost of a 68 VW bug with a 2013 Bugatti. :mad2:

The RV-10 is still going to be worth nearly what you paid for it. :dunno:

I flew my RV-10 out to Laramie and back yesterday and averaged 200mph on 12.5 gph of $3.60 car gas. 1,000 mile round trip, left at 10 back by 5. Try that is a 30 year old spam can. ;)
Click to expand...

I do it in a 52 year old spam can. Don't run auto gas but wouldn't even if there were an stc. At about 1/3 the entry cost of an RV10, which is a lot of hours of fuel. And, I know who built it.
 
bartmc said:
I do it in a 52 year old spam can. Don't run auto gas but wouldn't even if there were an stc. At about 1/3 the entry cost of an RV10, which is a lot of hours of fuel. And, I know who built it.
Click to expand...

Yea, but your tail is funny looking. :nono:

:rofl:


What is your fuel burn at 200 MPH? :dunno:

Oh, and BTW, I can find out who built any home built. It is a matter of public record. ;)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but the guy who built Bart's has his name on more than one or two of them.

Geico266 said:
Yea, but your tail is funny looking. :nono:

:rofl:


What is your fuel burn at 200 MPH? :dunno:

Oh, and BTW, I can find out who built any home built. It is a matter of public record. ;)
Click to expand...
 
Geico266 said:
Yea, but your tail is funny looking. :nono:

:rofl:


What is your fuel burn at 200 MPH? :dunno:

Oh, and BTW, I can find out who built any home built. It is a matter of public record. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm running 75-100 ROP, getting 166 knots TAS Plan 14gph longer flights seem to be working out closer to 13. Been running it WOT at 8500-9500'
 
We built the -10 because we wanted all new, ifr capable, ability to load 600 lbs of people, 60 gal fuel, 75 lbs baggage and cruise at 160 ktas on 10.5 gph. We average 15 nm/gal at cruise, better than our SUV. We fly with all four of us 95% of the time. We could have saved purchasing used until avionics or engine work were needed. 95 hrs TT coming up on one year and very happy with our choice.
 
I suspect that as the experimental market continues to grow, you'll continue to see more 4-seat experimentals. There are still a handful - RV10, Lancair ES (aka Columbia/Corvallis), Lancair IV, and Lancair Evolution. I know there are more, but as a certified guy for the moment, that's all that comes to mind.

What I'm looking forward to is the production of more experimental twins. There's the CriCri, and some Rutanamagig that there aren't many of. I suspect that, with time, more experimental twins may pop up. Then again, I may be wrong.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I suspect that as the experimental market continues to grow, you'll continue to see more 4-seat experimentals. There are still a handful - RV10, Lancair ES (aka Columbia/Corvallis), Lancair IV, and Lancair Evolution. I know there are more, but as a certified guy for the moment, that's all that comes to mind.

What I'm looking forward to is the production of more experimental twins. There's the CriCri, and some Rutanamagig that there aren't many of. I suspect that, with time, more experimental twins may pop up. Then again, I may be wrong.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Velocity Twin - that's a fine looking ship. I think they should stretch it a little and put club seating in the back and hang two DeltaHawk diesel engines on it and it would be perfect.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I suspect that as the experimental market continues to grow, you'll continue to see more 4-seat experimentals. There are still a handful - RV10, Lancair ES (aka Columbia/Corvallis), Lancair IV, and Lancair Evolution. I know there are more, but as a certified guy for the moment, that's all that comes to mind.

What I'm looking forward to is the production of more experimental twins. There's the CriCri, and some Rutanamagig that there aren't many of. I suspect that, with time, more experimental twins may pop up. Then again, I may be wrong.
Click to expand...

Some of the more recent additions to the EAB four place or 2+2 have been targeted at the STOL/backcountry market. One example being the Bearhawk another being the CH801. With their slower cruise they don't appeal to everyone.

Also don't forget the Velocity.

I stumbled on another experimental twin under development the other day, the Skyshark TP-4. Looks like an experimental four place reciprocating-engined Piaggio Avanti. And speaking of Velocity they are working on the V-Twin pusher.

I'm in negotiation to sell the 170. If that happens I'm also going to be looking for an experimental, at least a 2+2.
 
Last edited:
Art VanDelay said:
Also an import/export business and an architect !
Click to expand...

Oh, you forgot Marine Biologist. Remember that golf ball you got out of the whale's blow hole? Titeleist.......
 
Anthony said:
Oh, you forgot Marine Biologist. Remember that golf ball you got out of the whale's blow hole? Titeleist.......
Click to expand...

The sea was angry that day, my friends...
 
alaskaflyer said:
Some of the more recent additions to the EAB four place or 2+2 have been targeted at the STOL/backcountry market. One example being the Bearhawk another being the CH801. With their slower cruise they don't appeal to everyone.

Also don't forget the Velocity.
Click to expand...
And the Glasair Sportsman 2+2. That one was tempting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top