Piper Saratoga -V- Vans RV10

Geico266

Geico266

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
19,136
Location
Husker Nation, NE
Display Name
Geico
Home Airfield
KCEK
Most of you know I am pro experimental and despise certified aircraft. Well, that was put to the test yesterday as a commercial pilot buddy needed someone to fly left seat while he adjusted his high tech cameras. He takes pictures of the planet for people. Government agencies, etc. Google earth type stuff with thermal imaging. Amazing technology...... but I digress.

Anyway, we load up and after a brief panel go over we head for the runway. Take off was long and it was just the two of us. :eek: The turbo was overhauled 2 years ago for $9k. :eek:

So we begin our flying pattern so the camera records the earth below. Hmm. This thing is smooth. Trimmed out straight and level it holds altitude like being on a string. Controls were heavy compared to the 10. :eek: But it was a nice ride.

The RV-10 is much more nimble, responsive, and lighter. It flies faster, carries more weight, no retract, no turbo to overhaul, and burns less fuel, and burns çar gas.

Seriously, you guys really own and fly these things? :rofl: The RV-10 is cheaper, costs less to maintain, flies faster, and looks better. Granted the doors won't fly off if you forget to lock them, but hey a proper pre flight and you are good to go.

I was really impressed with the smoothness, but that is due to the weight penalty I guess.


Buy an RV-10 over the Piper Saratoga you will be glad you did. ;)


Did you really think I would like the Saratoga? :no: Its a certified airplane! :dunno:


:rofl:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Most of you know I am pro experimental and despise certified aircraft. Well, that was put to the test yesterday as a commercial pilot buddy Needed someone to fy left seat while he adjusted his cameras. He takes pictures of the planet for people. Government agencies, etc. Google earth type stuff with thermal imaging.

Anyway, we load up and after a brief panel go over we head for the runway. Take off was long and it was just the two of us. :eek: The turbo was overhauled 2 years ago for $9k. :eek:

So we begin our flying pattern so the camera records the earth below. Hmm. This thing is smooth. Trimmed out straight and level it holds altitude like being on a string. Controls were heavy compared to the 10. :eek:

The RV-10 is much more nimble, responsive, and lighter. It flies faster, carries more weight, no retract, no turbo to overhaul.

Seriously, you guys really own and fly these things? :rofl: The RV-10 is cheaper, costs less to maintain, flies faster, and looks better. Granted the doors won't fly off if you forget to lock them, but hey a proper pre flight and you are good to go.

I was really impressed with the smoothness, but that is due to the weight penalty I guess.


Buy an RV-10 over the Piper Saratoga you will be glad you did. ;)


Did you really think I would like the Saratoga? :no:


:rofl:
Click to expand...

First of all, this is like comparing a SUV with a sports car. :dunno:

I don't think the RV-10 can carry 6 people unless I missed something.

Your never ending campaign against certified aircraft gets old and predictable. Most people here have their preferences already and will not be swayed by constant put downs and ranting. It's akin to a liberal at a Ron Paul rally trying to convince everyone to switch over to his viewpoint. :dunno:

Homebuilts are attractive to a certain audience in aviation. Many aviators do not want to take the time or effort to build one, and many people are leery of buying a used one built by a builder with unknown skills.
 
And I don't think you'd be allowed to use an experimental in commercial service like aerial mapping, but I could be wrong.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Your never ending campaign against certified aircraft gets old and predictable. Most people here have their preferences already and will not be swayed by constant put downs and ranting. It's akin to a liberal at a Ron Paul rally trying to convince everyone to switch over to his viewpoint. :dunno

.
Click to expand...

Point taken.

It is easier for me to hit and run (post and scoot) than to try and change minds.

Starting with a clean slate why would anyone buy a certified airplane? If you are a bush pilot in Alaska and want to carry people or things for money I get that. Experimentals are not for hire. If that is not your mission why would anyone buy, spend their hard earned money, on an inferior product? :dunno:
 
Geico266 said:
Point taken.

It is easier for me to hit and run (post and scoot) than to try and change minds.

Starting with a clean slate why would anyone buy a certified airplane? If you are a bush pilot in Alaska and want to carry people or things for money I get that. Experimentals are not for hire. If that is not your mission why would anyone buy, spend their hard earned money, on an inferior product? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Like I stated above:

Rotor&Wing said:
Homebuilts are attractive to a certain audience in aviation. Many aviators do not want to take the time or effort to build one, and many people are leery of buying a used one built by a builder with unknown skills.
Click to expand...

With some of the shoddy build quality I've witnessed in the homebuilt arena I can see why people would rather go with a production aircraft.
 
RV-10's are a blast, but the Saratoga will get me, my wife, my daughters and my parents to the beach.

RV-10 can't..

If you are looking at 4 place vs 4 place, RV beats the pants off most.

4 place v 6 place? Moot point.

My 6 is more fun than both.
 
Geico266 said:
Point taken.

It is easier for me to hit and run (post and scoot) than to try and change minds.

Starting with a clean slate why would anyone buy a certified airplane? If you are a bush pilot in Alaska and want to carry people or things for money I get that. Experimentals are not for hire. If that is not your mission why would anyone buy, spend their hard earned money, on an inferior product? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Because they want some assurance on the build quality?

If I had the time and the aptitude I'd love to build an experimental. I agree that the new designs offer good performance, and the freedom in avionics selection is attractive.

But I wouldn't go and buy one and put my family in it without a LOT of knowledge about the construction.
 
BellyUpFish said:
RV-10's are a blast, but the Saratoga will get me, my wife, my daughters and my parents to the beach.

RV-10 can't..
Click to expand...

True. But an RV-10 and an RV-7A together can. Plus, you don't have to fight over who gets to fly. :D
 
When there is a Experimental twin with six seats that can climb OEI with a 1250 pound fuel + pax load, and known ice certifiable, just let me know, fella. I'll be there.

Funny thing, I can't fine one.
 
Last edited:
I would absolutely buy experimental. The problem for me is that no experimentals exist that fit what I need.

Even if the experimental realm offered an all-weather piston twin (which it doesn't, at least not that I've seen), I don't have the time to build. Even if I trusted someone else's building skills (which I might), I would be quite surprised if I could actually find one that proves a better value than the Aztec or 310. Looking at the cost of a completed Lancair IV-P as comparison, it's about 10x the cost of my Aztec. Hmm...
 
CJones said:
True. But an RV-10 and an RV-7A together can. Plus, you don't have to fight over who gets to fly. :D
Click to expand...

We'd have to find another pilot. My pops and I play pilot on our trips. ;)
 
Piper offers regular tours of their production facility and has a long history as an airplane manufacturer. Can the guy who who built whatever -10 I am looking at say the same?

The only guy I know who built one had it burn up while he and his daughter were in it. Great advertising. Can I get a discount if I buy two?
 
I'd love to have an RV10, but the assembled versions seem to cost about $100,000 more than my four seat Sierra :( The speed difference would only cut about 9 minutes off of my most frequent flight, so it doesn't make much sense for me personally.
 
bbchien said:
When there is a Experimental twin with six seats that can climb with a 1250 pound fuel + pax load, and known ice certifiable, just let me know, fella. I'll be there.

Funny thing, I can't fine one.
Click to expand...

I would like to build one. I'd add pressurization to the mix, as well.

Now if only I knew how to build something other than the engine...
 
Geico266 said:
Starting with a clean slate why would anyone buy a certified airplane? If you are a bush pilot in Alaska and want to carry people or things for money I get that. Experimentals are not for hire. If that is not your mission why would anyone buy, spend their hard earned money, on an inferior product? :dunno:
Click to expand...


I've got a 172....:mad2:

I bought it so I would have something to fly while I'm building my RV... :goofy::D
 
If I build it, I'll fly it, If you build it I won't. If Piper Builds it, I will. I'd love to have an RV-10, it seems like the ideal plane for me. I won't commit to green bananas much less a multi-year, multi-hour, multi-thousand dollar project. I could afford to build an RV-10 in both time and money but I wouldn't be flying anything for the next 5-10 years. So, I'll fly my slow piper and log more hours than the RV pilot going to the same place.
 
airguy said:
I've got a 172....:mad2:

I bought it so I would have something to fly while I'm building my RV... :goofy::D
Click to expand...

We did that.. Got stuck with a 172, Da-40 and an RV-6 all at once. LOL

The 172 was fun though. 180 horse with a constant speed prop. She was the fastest 172 around. ;)
 
I have bought and sold about a dozen RVs, and looked at literally thousands of them. All from different parts of the country, built by different people, some from other countries. With very few minor exceptions I have yet to see any major problems that would indication the plane is not airworthy. While there areare exceptions I am sure (as there are with certified planes ) the argument that buying and flying a plane you have not built yourself is really weak. They are all inspected by the FAA and all must have a condition inspection every year. A good prebuy inspection is a must for any airplane, and it would reveal most discrepancies.

I guess what most are saying is it is hard to get outside your comfort zone?

I know I sound like an arrogant sob, but all I am saying is keep an opened mind. Don't rule out experimental aircraft. That's all.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
I have bought and sold about a dozen RVs, and looked at literally thousands of them. All from different parts of the country, built by different people. With very few minor exceptions I have yet to see any major problems that would indication the plane is not airworthy. While there areare exceptions I am sure (as there are with certified planes ) the argument that buying and flying a plane you have not built yourself is rediculous. They are all inspected by the FAA and all must have a condition inspection every year. A good prebuy inspection is a must for any airplane, and it would reveal most discrepancies.
Click to expand...
Geico: Find me a FIKI e-built with OEI capability and I'm there. Just can't seem to find one.

And aside from the EPIC now defunct, I can't seem to find a SE e-build 6 seater. Toga vs. RV 10- a 6 seat vs a 4 seat? What kind of question is that? :idea:
 
TMetzinger said:
And I don't think you'd be allowed to use an experimental in commercial service like aerial mapping, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you are right. In fact my buddy looked real hard at the 10 for his work. But the local FSDO promised him the it would not be a good idea. :eek:

He also had to get his commercial license.
 
Have you looked at the price of some certified aircraft these days? I'm talking about the up-front purchase cost. It's pretty difficult to find an experimental that is just as capable as many of them for the same cost.

Sure, the experimental will be cheaper to maintain, but many people simply do not have the funds for a 2x increase in acquisition cost.

Also life insurance can be a big issue - employer policies, etc, etc.

The Saratoga is a truck. It's not a fair comparison. There are missions that it can do that your RV10 simply cannot do. For those missions - it's a great airplane.
 
bbchien said:
Geico: Find me a FIKI e-built with OEI capability and I'm there. Just can't seem to find one.

And aside from the EPIC now defunct, I can't seem to find a SE e-build 6 seater. Toga vs. RV 10- a 6 seat vs a 4 seat? What kind of question is that? :idea:
Click to expand...

Living proof of the reason why one-trick ponies don't draw top billing.
 
bbchien said:
Geico: Find me a FIKI e-built with OEI capability and I'm there. Just can't seem to find one.

And aside from the EPIC now defunct, I can't seem to find a SE e-build 6 seater. Toga vs. RV 10- a 6 seat vs a 4 seat? What kind of question is that? :idea:
Click to expand...

Is that an RV? ;)


Can the Saratoga really carry 6 full size adults? Full fuel? :confused: Why only 1 door? :rofl:
 
Because they don't often catch fire on final and a quick exit isn't important? Or that you're incapable of counting past 1?

Geico266 said:
Can the Saratoga really carry 6 full size adults? Full fuel? :confused: why only 1 door? :rofl:
Click to expand...
 
bbchien said:
And aside from the EPIC now defunct, I can't seem to find a SE e-build 6 seater. Toga vs. RV 10- a 6 seat vs a 4 seat? What kind of question is that? :idea:
Click to expand...

Just trying to keep the pot stirred up Doc. :D

And because Vans's doesn't make a 6 seater....... yet. ;)


Like Jesse said it was not a fair comparison, but it was the only plane I flew in yesterday so I decided to post my thoughts about it. It was a fun plane to fly if you like lumber wagons. :rofl: Seriously, it was a good airplane.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Is the bagage door a passenger door also? This Toga is highly modded to accomidate the $500k camera. He has wires, CPUs, GPS, all over back there, and a huge hole in the floor.
Click to expand...

All PA-32s have 2 doors. Really big doors. Huge even.

My '66 Cherokee 6 has 6 seats and a 1625lb useful load. So, yes it can carry 6 full sized people and full fuel (approx 6 hours).

They can do overhead breaks too! You should get one.
 
COFlyBoy said:
All PA-32s have 2 doors. Really big doors. Huge even.

My '66 Cherokee 6 has 6 seats and a 1625lb useful load. So, yes it can carry 6 full sized people and full fuel (approx 6 hours).

They can do overhead breaks too! You should get one.
Click to expand...
ROTFLMAO.

The airspeed on a PA34 can get really out of hand in an OH break even with all the drag stuff out.

The rear door is FIVE FEET wide :)
 
Stick a piano or a casket in your 10 and then maybe, MAYBE it will be a fair comparison.

Honestly threads like this turn me off of EAB aircraft in general and Vans in particular.
 
...and the mentality of their promoters.

They are nice A/C for what they were designed. But I haven't seen one that can carry 1000 in the cabin and fly for 500 nm.
 
Geico266 said:
Is the bagage door a passenger door also? This Toga is highly modded to accomidate the $500k camera. He has wires, CPUs, GPS, all over back there, and a huge hole in the floor.
Click to expand...

Eh, we have a "main door" that is for the pilots on the front right side. We also have a rear door on the left rear that allows passenger boarding. 2 doors.

I'm firmly in the RV camp but I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this comparison. If the 10 was a 6 place maybe. It isn't.

Yes, depending on fuel you can easily take 6 adults.
 
bbchien said:
Geico: Find me a FIKI e-built with OEI capability and I'm there. Just can't seem to find one.

And aside from the EPIC now defunct, I can't seem to find a SE e-build 6 seater. Toga vs. RV 10- a 6 seat vs a 4 seat? What kind of question is that? :idea:
Click to expand...

As to the second paragraph, I know that Comp Air has had 6, 7, and more seat experimental models for quite a few years. For example, there are two Aerocomp Comp Air 8 turbines for sale on controller at the moment. But I don't know of any FIKI systems for them.
 
I think he's just yankin your chain guys, you may want to consider lightening up.

Many of us have fun touting our airplanes or making harmless jabs about others.

The RV-10 is more comparable to a Tiger, than a Toga, but I think the OP knows that. :D
 
Geico266 said:
I have bought and sold about a dozen RVs, and looked at literally thousands of them. All from different parts of the country, built by different people, some from other countries. With very few minor exceptions I have yet to see any major problems that would indication the plane is not airworthy. While there areare exceptions I am sure (as there are with certified planes ) the argument that buying and flying a plane you have not built yourself is really weak. They are all inspected by the FAA and all must have a condition inspection every year. A good prebuy inspection is a must for any airplane, and it would reveal most discrepancies.

I guess what most are saying is it is hard to get outside your comfort zone?

I know I sound like an arrogant sob, but all I am saying is keep an opened mind. Don't rule out experimental aircraft. That's all.
Click to expand...

Then why have you ruled out production aircraft? Can't you keep a open mind? :)
 
Lots of reasons to prefer certified to experimental:

1 - Pax acceptance. While pilots like you and I might not have any heartburn riding in an experimental, I have family to carry who will NOT board an experimental. Seating 4 versus 6 is irrelevant if I'm always solo.

2 - Building skills. I am an engineer, not a technician. There are aircraft drawings, including both the A-380 and F-35, with my signature on them. But my mechanical skills stop at oil changes in ground vehicles. Simply put, I'm not sure I would trust something that I built. I would trust the skills of others even less. And NO, inspections are no substitute for quality (check your Kaizen manual).

3 - Money. Your comparison of operating cost ignores the very big difference in acquisition cost. For the 182 I bought I can also buy a thousand hours of gas (and an engine overhaul) before I hit the cost of your RV-10. Plus, that cost is spread out over years versus all up front (heard of the time value of money?). In the firearms world we normally recommend less expensive guns to beginners (like me, low time pilot) with the admonition that spending the difference on practice ammo will result in better skills.
 
Anthony said:
I think he's just yankin your chain guys, you may want to consider lightening up.
Click to expand...

I sure hope so. Threads like this are the reason I get dirty looks when I pull up to the fuel pumps in the -7. As much as I hate to admit it, the stereotype that RV flyers are stuck-up snobs is true of a lot of the RV community and discussions like this one (even if tongue-in-cheek) just help to reinforce those stereotypes. Hopefully I have never come across as the stereotypical RV-flyer in the handful of PoA'ers that I have met.... although there was one instance of an overhead break at 6Y9 one year.. :rofl:
 
Geico266 said:
Pretty sure you are right. In fact my buddy looked real hard at the 10 for his work. But the local FSDO promised him the it would not be a good idea. :eek:

He also had to get his commercial license.
Click to expand...
Stable is better than nimble for mapping anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top