Piper Saratoga -V- Vans RV10

Zealots in any endeavor are seldom among the brightest and best, especially in terms of credibility and common sense. Their talent lies in whipping their fellow believers into a frenzy, while those on the outside watch in bemusement wondering "WTF is wrong with that bunch of morons?"

jtheune said:
Then why have you ruled out production aircraft? Can't you keep a open mind? :)
Click to expand...
 
CJones said:
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:
Click to expand...


It's not that RV drivers are snobs. It's that you are all wannabe military hot doggers.. Or something like that..

I love our -6.. ;)
 
Dean said:
What about a turbine powered single with a 225 MPH cruise and 2500 lb useful load?
Click to expand...

225 MPH cruise for a turbine is slow, unless you're talking helicopters. Even at 225 KTS, you're not looking very fast for a plane that needs to get into the flight levels to get any sort of economy. And at 2500 useful load, how much are you allowing for fuel? You'd probably want about half that (if not more) to have a good range. Still gives you a good amount for pax and baggage.

I'm also just not a huge fan of turbines. Part of that is because I understand how piston engines work so well and have a comparatively poor understanding of turbines, but I also haven't found that I particularly like their operational characteristics, specifically related to fuel burn. For what I do, a fast piston aircraft gives me sufficient speed and meets my compromises better.

Something like a Lancair IV-P in a twin form would be nice. I'd design it more like a pressurized Cessna 310, and I'd put on a pair of turbo automotive-based engines. I have a few ideas on how I'd do that.
 
jtheune said:
Then why have you ruled out production aircraft? Can't you keep a open mind? :)
Click to expand...

I got my PPL in a 172. Took me 28 days from start to finish. Nice plane, just too heavy and slow. Like driving a station wagon.
 
Skylane81E said:
Now all that's missing is time and money
Click to expand...

I could probably find the time these days, and I could do it cheaply enough. What's really missing is the knowledge of how to build an airplane - the engine I could do easily enough.
 
Geico266 said:
I got my PPL in a 172. Took me 28 days from start to finish. Nice plane, just too heavy and slow. Like driving a station wagon.
Click to expand...

A bigger engine will fix the sluggishness, but its still slow. I can get about 125 TAS if im doing about 2600RPM around 7k, but thats also at 10 gph and running the engine pretty hard. A nice cruise at about 2450 will yield around 115-117 ktas which isnt terrible, and its at 8gph.
 
DavidWhite said:
A bigger engine will fix the sluggishness, but its still slow. I can get about 125 TAS if im doing about 2600RPM around 7k, but thats also at 10 gph and running the engine pretty hard. A nice cruise at about 2450 will yield around 115-117 ktas which isnt terrible, and its at 8gph.
Click to expand...

shoot with 160 hp, 100 more RPM, and running lean of peak i can get the same speed on just a little more fuel.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I could probably find the time these days, and I could do it cheaply enough. What's really missing is the knowledge of how to build an airplane - the engine I could do easily enough.
Click to expand...

Airframe wouldn't be too bad...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I could probably find the time these days, and I could do it cheaply enough. What's really missing is the knowledge of how to build an airplane - the engine I could do easily enough.
Click to expand...

The airframe is "easy" with Vans kits and the experience on VAF. The detailed instructions are amazing. Most kits are prepunched now. This means the parts are preformed and prepunched. They are now more accurate than certified airframes. Basically, it is a big erector set with extremely detailed instructions. The factory support is second to none. If you have a question about your build call Vans and you are talking to the engineers that designed the planes.

Just about any EAA chapter can help you get the knowledge needed to get started. There are hands on shops at OSH that show you everything from riveting to avionics. There are builders assistance programs available also. EAA Technical Counselors ( I am one ) are available also to look over your shoulder and answer any questions you may have.

There are many free on line videos full of building tips. More are being added daily.

Building and flying an airplane with your own two hands is an amazing feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction that is much easier today than ever before.

Go for it! You too could be doing overhead breaks! ;)

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/search.php?searchid=11508966

http://www.sportair.com/
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Building and flying an airplane built with your own two hands is an amazing feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction that is much easier today than ever before.

Go for it. With any luck after writing checks for a few hundred thousand dollars and spending all your waking hours in your garage for about 10 years you'll be able to start flying again. Is this a great country, or what?
Click to expand...

FTFY;)
 
wabower said:
FTFY;)
Click to expand...


:rofl:


Building is not for everyone. Yes, you have to be goal oriented. Yes, you have to have a basic understanding of materials, hand tools, measuring, and common sense. Yes, you have to be sick and tired of watching TV. Oh, and you need to be able to read. See Wayne! You are a home builder candidate! You are smarter than a brick right? :confused:

No, you do not need $100k of thousands of $$$. No, you do not need a huge shop. I build my plane in a 1 1/2 car garage. No, it won't take you 10 years, took me a year, first time builder. The RV-12 takes 800 hours. 6-8 months.
 
Building the airframe is significantly harder when you actually have to design it. ;)
 
Geico266 said:
:rofl:


Building is not for everyone. Yes, you have to be goal oriented. Yes, you have to have a basic understanding of materials, hand tools, measuring, and common sense. Yes, you have to be sick and tired of watching TV. Oh, and you need to be able to read. See Wayne! You are a home builder candidate! You are smarter than a brick right? :confused:

No, you do not need $100k of thousands of $$$. No, you do not need a huge shop. I build my plane in a 1 1/2 car garage. No, it won't take you 10 years, took me a year, first time builder. The RV-12 takes 800 hours. 6-8 months.
Click to expand...

Any pics of your 10?

Here is our -6..

roll.jpg
 
I couldn't build a boy-scout birdhouse with directions on the box.

Geico266 said:
:rofl:


Building is not for everyone. Yes, you have to be goal oriented. Yes, you have to have a basic understanding of materials, hand tools, measuring, and common sense. Yes, you have to be sick and tired of watching TV. Oh, and you need to be able to read. See Wayne! You are a home builder candidate! You are smarter than a brick right? :confused:

No, you do not need $100k of thousands of $$$. No, you do not need a huge shop. I build my plane in a 1 1/2 car garage. No, it won't take you 10 years, took me a year, first time builder. The RV-12 takes 800 hours. 6-8 months.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those usually don't become apparent until the NTSB investigators collect enough pieces to figure out what happened.

Geico266 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That depends entirely on your personal risk standards. Don't take this to mean I'm not a big fan of E/AB aircraft. But... I might fly it if I built it, though that is by no means certain. But I certainly wouldn't fly with passengers. If you built it -- and I really don't care who you are -- please, enjoy flying it, and I hope the next few owners do as well. But I'm not flying in it.

I am not entirely enthused about flying a rental plane either, since I don't know *for sure* how well it's been maintained. Unfortunately I won't have much of a choice there for a little while. However, at least I know that the chances of a factory manufactured, certificated aircraft having been assembled incorrectly are lower than the chances of an experimental having a hidden show-stopping defect.

So let's assume for a moment that I could (and would be willing to) get my wife and other prospective passengers to get into an experimental, and that if I would be willing to build and fly it. Realistically an RV-10 (the only RV that would work for us) would take me a few years to complete, and cost easily double what I'd pay for, say, an IFR equipped 182 or Archer. I'm glad you were able to build your RV in a year. I work far too much to be able to devote that kind of time to building, and have literally no space in which to work (and if I have to rent space to build, just add another few dozen AMUs to the cost).

Anyway, you keep asking why anyone would want to fly a factory-produced SPAM can. My answer is, performance isn't the only factor to consider. I have a great deal of admiration for the guys who can invest the time, space and expense to build experimentals. Right up until the point when they start being critical of those who don't.
 
Am I the only person who likes "truck like" handling? I like a stable ship. Maybe I'll build an RV with control linkage set up for reduced mechanical advantage :D
 
I think the title, which is a lousy apples to grapefruits comparison, is indicative of the reverse bias demonstrated by RV builders......the proposition chose was inherently inappropriate.

Find me a six seat E design, aluminum, with two blowers and 1200 useful, that you can climb with on one, and I'll be buying plans....
 
Skylane81E said:
So don't start from scratch, re enginer an existing design
Click to expand...

The problem there is that the most appropriate experimental aircraft out there that I'd want to start from are quite expensive, and don't lend themselves well to reengineering (composites and all).

A 310 would be a good starting point for the project. But it'd have to get beefed up to increase its Vne and Vno. Need to add speed brakes. Need room for extra fuel. Need to add a pressure vessel, and all those fun parts. The hardest part out of all of that is I have no idea how they calculate Vne/Vno, all I know is how to overbuild things so they don't break.
 
Cessna beat you to the punch by ~42 years. They call it a 340. The turbine STC is already approved, including increased tankage. Alls you gotta do, Bigmitts, is write the checks. As you always say, when in doubt whip it out.

Ted DuPuis said:
The problem there is that the most appropriate experimental aircraft out there that I'd want to start from are quite expensive, and don't lend themselves well to reengineering (composites and all).

A 310 would be a good starting point for the project. But it'd have to get beefed up to increase its Vne and Vno. Need to add speed brakes. Need room for extra fuel. Need to add a pressure vessel, and all those fun parts. The hardest part out of all of that is I have no idea how they calculate Vne/Vno, all I know is how to overbuild things so they don't break.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Cessna beat you to the punch by ~42 years. They call it a 340. The turbine STC is already approved, including increased tankage. Alls you gotta do, Bigmitts, is write the checks.
Click to expand...

Those Cessna engineers may have been smarter than I give them credit for. ;)

I do like 340s. But a P-310 with 421 engines is more or less what I want rather than the extra weight and drag of the 340. I know, it'd cost me more to build what I want that than to just buy a 340, but I never claimed to be the sharpest Crayon in the box.

As you always say, when in doubt whip it out.
Click to expand...

Now I have said many things, but that ain't one of them. ;)
 
I assume that you are aware that the pressure vessel you specified is the reason why the 340 fuselage is heavier and draggier than the 310?

Ted DuPuis said:
Those Cessna engineers may have been smarter than I give them credit for. ;)

I do like 340s. But a P-310 with 421 engines is more or less what I want rather than the extra weight and drag of the 340. I know, it'd cost me more to build what I want that than to just buy a 340, but I never claimed to be the sharpest Crayon in the box.



Now I have said many things, but that ain't one of them. ;)
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I assume that you are aware that the pressure vessel you specified is the reason why the 340 fuselage is heavier and draggier than the 310?
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm sure that what I'd effectively end up with is a 340 with automotive-based engines on each side churning out about 500 ponies instead of the 285-335 that the actual 340s had depending on model and whether or not they had a RAM conversion done. I might stick to the standard vs. cabin class configuration, although cabin class would probably be more marketable.

I don't enjoy flying turbine engines. I realize I'm about the only one who doesn't. See earlier post about Crayons.
 
What's the pressure vessel able to handle, will it go high enough for a turbine to be worth anything? Turbines are great but burn too much fuel down low.
 
Just as an aside, people do use experimental-AB's for aerial photography. The relevant line in the op lims is typically "no person may operate this Aircraft for carrying persons or property for compensation or hire."
 
Skylane81E said:
What's the pressure vessel able to handle, will it go high enough for a turbine to be worth anything? Turbines are great but burn too much fuel down low.
Click to expand...

It's not a very high pressure differential, but it's enough that you could fly at altitudes similar to a turboprop while still maintaining appropriate cabin pressure. Perhaps a bit lower, but not by much. On the Commander, at FL260 you've reached 10,000 ft cabin pressure. I think on the P-Baron it's something like FL200 (Dave?). The Cessna 340 I thought had slightly better than a P-Baron. The Cheyenne normally flies at FL200-240 happily, at least that's where my friends fly them.

wabower said:
Let's talk again after you fly them for a few years.
Click to expand...

That may be true. I'll report back. It would probably help if I found a turbine that I could actually fit in comfortably and got reasonable performance. The Commander has reasonable performance, but makes my back side feel like I've been in a prison shower. The Cheyenne is comfortable, but I find the performance lacking for how much fuel you burn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top