The Van’s RV-10 - Is it the perfect airplane?
- Thread starter RyanB
- Start date
So if they're buying a used E/AB they don't have a repairman like your 1st group, correct? What are the used aircraft prices like compared to the TC world? Who is this larger group paying to work on their used E/AB? Are they paying normal TC rates for these APs? Or is this the E/AB version of a 20 min/$200 annual?
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,554
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
There's a vast spectrum. Some owners do a lot of their own work. Some farm it out to a local wrench (whether the wrench has a ticket or not). Obviously, the condition inspection has to be done by someone with an A&P ticket. Best I can tell, if you're using pro services, you're paying pro rates. If your buddy Gus is turning wrenches for you, YMMV.
unsafervguy
En-Route
no, you cannot get a repairmans cert unless you are the primary builder, however, all the cert is needed for is the condition inspection. all other maintenance can be done by anybody, it seems a larger and larger group of buyers have no desire and/or the skills so they find someone to work on it for them, since there are no regs, sometimes it whoever, and then it gets interesting when they take it to an A&P for the condition inspection. a lot of bigger shops will not touch an EAB so they tend to use out of the trunk type guys, just as with the T/C world, there is the 20 minute condition inspections. a lot times it the same A&P's that do them on T/C aircraft and have no idea about that model and the mods that may have been done. how many A&p's have ever even seen a lightspeed ignition system, let alone how to time it? there are some shops out there that specialize in EAB, and they charge just as much as the good T/C guys and are just as booked up. there is a lot more owner assist condition inspections done and I really lie doing them with an owner that is really interested in learning how to work on their aircraft. but i also do find that in the T/C world also.
Prices for well know models, RV's at the top of the list, are going for stupid money right now, lesser know designs and scratch built examples han be great buys, but you need to have someone that knows them well take a look, as in the T/C world there are some gotchas that can hurt bad if you don't know what to look for.
Have seen some @Jesse Saint built RV 10's going for 300k. Which when you compare to a used SR22 is pretty comparable.
Comanche was the closest thing Piper made to an RV10. It's been said that was Van's benchmark.
I say Id love a 6 seat EAB, and I would. But right now I have access to a Cherokee Six. Decent examples with crap avionics and a run out engine are getting 150k. That's why I think there's a market for a 6 seat EAB. And I also think Vans could design something that would leave the Cherokee Six in the dust. Until that day comes I'll build a 14 to satisfy my builder and speed thirst.
Too much. So we have TC owners who beech, whine, and moan the FAA is destroying their hobby because excess regulations make it too expensive and claim E/AB would be the only way "if they had an aircraft that would match my PA-24 or 172." So some of those whiners use shade tree APIAs to give them the financial relieve they need through 20 min/$200 annuals. Yet there are owners who do make the switch to E/AB, where regulations don't matter, still use the same mentality to save a buck by hiring Bubba at the local AutoZone to do their maintenance because they don't want to or can't do the maintenance, then find an AP to sign a 20 min/$200 condition. Something tells me it has zero to do with the FAA in the big picture and just some people being cheap which has always been my take. Can't wait till the FAA passes an owner-maintained category. I have a feeling I'm going to get richer one way or another.
From a performance, endurance, usable load, cabin volume, baggage area stand point how does the PA-24 compare to the RV-10? How about spare parts and support? Since they both suffer from the low-wing syndrome which one would you pick if all things were equal?
unsafervguy
En-Route
Too much. So we have TC owners who beech, whine, and moan the FAA is destroying their hobby because excess regulations make it too expensive and claim E/AB would be the only way "if they had an aircraft that would match my PA-24 or 172." So some of those whiners use shade tree APIAs to give them the financial relieve they need through 20 min/$200 annuals. Yet there are owners who do make the switch to E/AB, where regulations don't matter, still use the same mentality to save a buck by hiring Bubba at the local AutoZone to do their maintenance because they don't want to or can't do the maintenance, then find an AP to sign a 20 min/$200 condition. Something tells me it has zero to do with the FAA in the big picture and just some people being cheap which has always been my take. Can't wait till the FAA passes an owner-maintained category. I have a feeling I'm going to get richer one way or another.
its just not in aviation, I see it here in florida in the boat world also. people with 900k boat bitching about the cost to get someone out to change the oil in all five of their engines.
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,554
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
A 250 or 260 Comanche will generally have 100 lbs more useful load than the RV. Comanches often have bigger tanks too, so with the same engine, they can have more endurance and range. The RV is faster on the same fuel burn and has much better visibility. Comanches have parts that can be difficult to source, since they haven't made 'em in 50 years, and there are no difficult to source parts on the RV.
IMO, the RV-10 isn't built as sturdily as the Comanche. Thinner skins and the like, meaning a careless passenger will put a bigger dent in the RV. The Comanche has one door, which I hate. The RV has two doors that are top hinged and flimsy. Gotta be careful with them or bad things can happen.
unsafervguy
En-Route
all and all they are pretty close. the PA-24 has about 100-400 lbs more useful load, IF the builder of the 10 sets his max at what vans says to,the builder can put what ever ever they want. space wise i would say they are close. the RV-10 is limited to 100lbs in the baggage area. parts and spares the RV wins hands down as they are in current production. some pa-24 parts are getting hard to source, and expensive, electric fuel pumps and flap motors being a couple of the nasty ones. the RV-10 wins for not having the headache of retracts. I love the PA-24, I should have never sold my twinkie, but I would pick a RV-10 over a PA-24 nowdays. most Pa-24's will cost you a fortune to get a nice panel in to it, its a total rip out and redo to update it.
Agree. Its never been about the cost of work only people being cheap.
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,315
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
On the other side of the coin with TC aircraft I have seen owners that save money by buying some automotive store parts and using them. Using a Ford alternator and/or regulator or even a rebuild kit from the local AutoZone to repair/replace a faulty alternator, done in the hangar when the door is closed and nobody is watching.
I knew one pilot that replaced his landing light in his Cherokee with a replacement bulb from an auto parts store. A&P caught it on the annual and gave him a bit of grief over it and changed it out for a real certified ($$$) airplane bulb. Talking to a recent buyer of a Cessna 150 he was bragging on his LED landing light. I asked about the cost and he was honest that it was a cheap knockoff and he would put the original back in before his annual inspection was due.
Lots of ways to save money in aviation!
SoonerAviator
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 9,352
- Location
- Broken Arrow, OK
- Display Name
Display name:
SoonerAviator
Regarding the lack of 6-place experimental aircraft, I'd imagine the market is still a bit small for that to really pan out for the most part. As a percentage, there aren't a ton of SE 6-place aircraft as it is, so you're trying to attack a market segment of A36 and PA32 owners/would-be owners to switch to the homebuilt route. Very few are being purchased new, so you're trying to compete against $150-$300K used Bos and Lance/Saratoga/Six at this point, which is pretty much a wash by the time you bought a kit and built it, then bought an engine/panel in it. Sure, you have the side benefits of owner built-maintained, but from a dollars and cents perspective it's mostly a wash. Unless you want to design a twin-engine 6-place experimental, but then the market it still pretty small as many don't want ME birds anymore and you're back trying to compete against 310s and Seminoles which can be had likely for less than what you can build it for as an experimental.
The 2/4-seat homebuilt aircraft have a lot more advantage both in cost and competition.
That said, a Velocity Twin 6-place would be an amazing bird to own, if you had enough runway to make it happen.
The 2/4-seat homebuilt aircraft have a lot more advantage both in cost and competition.
That said, a Velocity Twin 6-place would be an amazing bird to own, if you had enough runway to make it happen.
But lets not compare illegal mx with legal mx. Every one of your examples has a legal route to follow and not necessarily an expensive route. There are even several posts on PoA that delve into these legal routes. For example, there are a number of actual aircraft parts that are vehicle parts at its core like Ford or Delco. Some OEMs even use this same terminology. Same with the bulbs. Technically bulbs fall under standard parts and except for the aircraft original certification there is no separate FAA approval for bulbs. Part 43 provides the methods to install these "non-certified" bulbs and parts. There are lots of ways to be both legal and cost effective when working on TC aircraft vs illegal and cheap. You just need to understand the guidance out there and follow it.
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,315
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
Lets do compare mx (especially legal vs illegal) as the conversation has to do with the cost of maintenance on experimental vs TC aircraft.
The point is that a number of people flying the TC aircraft are finding ways to make the cost more bearable because of the cost differential between maintaining an experiential and a TC aircraft. A lot of the cost is in complying with regulations that are not applicable to experimental aircraft. Owner assisted inspections can help soften the blow but the cost of parts and having an A&P do the work is a cost factor that cannot be ignored.
Sure. But illegal mx, whether against the FARs for TC aircraft or against the Operating Limitations on the E/AB side has zero place in any comparison. Agree? Illegal maintenance has more to do with the person and not the regulations as we discussed above.
What factors are part of your “cost differential”? As to costs more “bearable” that is subjective to the person. Perhaps lets use a more specific term like cost efficient: Comparing cost A to Cost B?
Can you give examples of what you mean by regulatory compliance costs not applicable to E/AB? If we are going to compare something, I need to know what you want to compare.
True. Except that a properly certificated owner can perform and sign-off a rather large selection of common work on their own. And owner-assist goes beyond just inspections as well. For example, there are a few PoA members that have overhauled their own engines under owner assist and performed a majority of the work. So while APIA costs are a part of the TC side, the percentages vary widely depending on a number of factors. And as to part costs that is not a slam dunk in all cases.
Why don’t we compare costs for an aircraft from each category over the span of an average year? Maybe start a new thread? You on the E/AB mx side and me on the TC side. Interested?
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,315
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
No.
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,554
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Typical year, the difference is labor. Experimentals use the same plugs, wires, tires, tubes, grease, oil, filters as a pseudo equivalent TC'd airplane. If you break an airframe part, you can owner produce the part for the experimental or the TC'd airplane, but it'll probably be easier to buy or make the experimental part because the plans are generally out there and because the more successful kit manufacturers have the parts in stock.
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,315
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
My experimental does not use aviation plugs, ignition wires, oil, oil filter, etc. as would a TC plane. This is part of what makes the compare/contrast difficult. Some experimentals do use an experimental version of a TC engine but many do not. The labor cost is quite different but there can be substantial saving on parts also.
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,554
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
You're flying a Sonex, right? What engine and what certified airplane would be reasonably comparable? With my RV, anything with a 4 cylinder Lycoming and fixed gear would be roughly comparable.
Bill Watson
En-Route
Random Data Points
- I just met up with some guys I flew to the Bahamas a few years ago in my RV10. Their main anecdote when telling of the trip is the apprehension they felt reading the experimental disclaimer printed on a couple of placards. I’m thinking that keeping the comparison specs to what’s legal is the point of a TC vs Exp comparison.
- When I attempted owner-assisted annuals in my Maule it became it seemed that the shop I was using was charging a bit more for the extra time involved in working with me. Whether true or not, I submit that owner work on a TC is not equivalent to owner work on an experimental in terms of cost. And iIt’s mainly about labor costs.
- I’ve been flying and maintaining my RV10 for 10 years/1300 hours and no one has touched the plane for maintenance except me. Labor costs are zero since I charge zero. That may not change until time for an overhaul or death.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
- I just met up with some guys I flew to the Bahamas a few years ago in my RV10. Their main anecdote when telling of the trip is the apprehension they felt reading the experimental disclaimer printed on a couple of placards. I’m thinking that keeping the comparison specs to what’s legal is the point of a TC vs Exp comparison.
- When I attempted owner-assisted annuals in my Maule it became it seemed that the shop I was using was charging a bit more for the extra time involved in working with me. Whether true or not, I submit that owner work on a TC is not equivalent to owner work on an experimental in terms of cost. And iIt’s mainly about labor costs.
- I’ve been flying and maintaining my RV10 for 10 years/1300 hours and no one has touched the plane for maintenance except me. Labor costs are zero since I charge zero. That may not change until time for an overhaul or death.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
And that is what I usually found when comparing TC vs E/AB on similar airframes with the annual cost being the high point. But in the big picture at what point do those labor cost differences, and part costs for the purists, become significant to an individual: $1.00, $10.00, $100.00, $1000.00, $10,000? Throw in aircraft performance, capability, acquire costs, perception differences into the equation, for a number of people the overall cost difference becomes moot. All things equal I've had some owner-assist customers keep their costs down to a point that would give a comparable E/AB owner a run for his money. It's definitely not one size fits all.
As a business owner I try not to gripe on price. Getting a 4k bill for annual will hurt, but my labor rate is 100 an hour. That adds up quick. So I get it.
My one gripe with certified and why I want to go eab isnt necessarily cost related. Now, while I do plan to do my own maintenance and inspection, it's not money driven. It's more freedom related. Avionics wise the cost really isn't that much different, afterall it's the same thing. But the freedom to put what I want into the panel is a selling point. I'd love to put a Dynon autopilot in the PA32 right now. But without the certification can't.
Plus I like building stuff. Fabricator by trade. I like knowing how everything works and that everything is just right. I plan on doing the avionics. The only thing I might be hesitant on is an engine overhaul. Will cross that bridge when it comes. But it's looking like an rv14 with an io390. Is there anything in the certified market that would compare?
I guess I'll be an exception?
My one gripe with certified and why I want to go eab isnt necessarily cost related. Now, while I do plan to do my own maintenance and inspection, it's not money driven. It's more freedom related. Avionics wise the cost really isn't that much different, afterall it's the same thing. But the freedom to put what I want into the panel is a selling point. I'd love to put a Dynon autopilot in the PA32 right now. But without the certification can't.
Plus I like building stuff. Fabricator by trade. I like knowing how everything works and that everything is just right. I plan on doing the avionics. The only thing I might be hesitant on is an engine overhaul. Will cross that bridge when it comes. But it's looking like an rv14 with an io390. Is there anything in the certified market that would compare?
I guess I'll be an exception?
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,315
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
Seems my point is being missed here. The savings in labor cost for condition inspections can be a large factor in the amount spent. But the saving on replacement parts, depending on the engine in the experimental airplane, can be substantial and is the reason you cannot relate all these cost straight across the board.
For instance, those flying an automotive conversion (VW, Subaru, Corvair, etc.) can replace the entire FWF package for likely 1/2 of the cost of rebuilding a runout O-200 or similar. Look at the cost of mag replacements compared to automotive ignitions systems that have proven to be quite reliable at much less cost. I can do an oil change (and likely include the analysis cost) for less than the price of a filter for a certified engine.
Camshaft replacement cost difference between the O-200 and my experimental engine saves me a thousand dollars, includes the lifters and a new cam gear is installed when it is shipped. I can replace all six plugs in my engine (iridium) for the cost of one plug for most certified engines. These plugs don't need to be changed every year but for the cost it makes sense to me to simply replace them instead of cleaning an old worn out plug an putting it back in the engine.
I could continue but I think it's quite obvious that there can be a substantial cost saving in maintaining an experimental aircraft over a TC aircraft. AGAIN ... a lot is going to depend on the engine, avionics, and other items installed.
Agree. This was the point I was making above. It depends on what aircraft are being compared. General statements that E/AB is cheaper than TC are not valid on several levels to include what the owner puts a value on.
Have you ever looked into getting that certification for just your aircraft? Given Dynon is flying in the E/AB world, thats half the battle and a good chunk of the development cost. Also as part of athe FAA Safer Skys initiative the certification process has been streamlined for certain "safety of flight" systems. For example, the ability to replace vacuum AI instruments with digital AIs as a minor alteration is part of this process. Auto pilots are another system high on this list.
Several years ago, I was involved with a group that was looking to develop an autopilot system for certain turbine helicopters with off-the-shelf parts. One of the drivers was the certification costs were reduced to the point it became economically feasible to pursue with such a small market. While I dont have all the referenses to this topic anymore, I might be able to find some in the public domaon and post them. So if money is not a primary driver you might want to look into costs to install a Dynon auto in your PA32 under the Safer Skies process as it may be within your budget and abilities. Who knows maybe Dynon will provide some support in your endeavour.
Last edited:
Bill Watson
En-Route
Sounds like you are close to the bulls eye for OBAM (Owner Built and Maintained) aircraft. I didn’t do it for cost reasons either. I did it to get the plane I wanted AND an experience I wanted. The RV10 did not disappoint.
I like working in a home workshop but I couldn’t justify carving out a part of my hangar just to do maintenance on my Maule. But building an RV was the kind of project I like and a workshop was born.
I had built plenty of model aircraft but aluminum work was a new challenge. During the build I found out that the late gentlemen who had served as an aviation mentor and sometimes sponsor, and who had a very successful career as an attorney and politician, had also taught aluminum aircraft fabrication to women during WWII. I liked that.
I hated the fiberglass work on the cabin but after enjoying the training and skills learned so much that I ended up building molds and doing layups for a custom slim-line center console that fit an O2 bottle and a mount for my iPad.
Did my own panel since I had some electrical chops. Powering up a multi-glass experimental panel the first time with out any smoke…. Priceless.
Swore I wasn’t going to paint but by the time it was time, I was ready. Great experience and very satisfying.
Having retired the same month of my first RV10 flight was on plan. The cost and flexibility of maintaining it over the past 10 years made possible more travel than I dreamed possible.
Get the ‘14!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Thats got me giddy and motivated. I'm a fabricator by trade. Have bucked a few rivets, and I mean only a few. Certainly not the 20,000+ I think the kit calls for. Have done my fair share of fiberglass work after spending my teen years racing (and crashing a few times) stock cars. Currently have a garage that I tore down and rebuilt from the bottom up that has living space above. That will be done in the spring, then build a large enough shop for the toys and the build. In the process of building a new 10,000 sq foot commercial building for the business so it might be a year or so. But I suppose with Van's lead time's it might be a good idea to buy now. I'm only 32 and have 2 planes I can fly so I can fly and build at my leisure
Star Keeper
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2021
- Messages
- 124
- Display Name
Display name:
Star Keeper
I thought all of the cheap SOBs were on sailboats.Too much. So we have TC owners who beech, whine, and moan the FAA is destroying their hobby because excess regulations make it too expensive and claim E/AB would be the only way "if they had an aircraft that would match my PA-24 or 172." So some of those whiners use shade tree APIAs to give them the financial relieve they need through 20 min/$200 annuals. Yet there are owners who do make the switch to E/AB, where regulations don't matter, still use the same mentality to save a buck by hiring Bubba at the local AutoZone to do their maintenance because they don't want to or can't do the maintenance, then find an AP to sign a 20 min/$200 condition. Something tells me it has zero to do with the FAA in the big picture and just some people being cheap which has always been my take. Can't wait till the FAA passes an owner-maintained category. I have a feeling I'm going to get richer one way or another.
Bill Watson
En-Route
Whatever it is, I went the quick build route. After building the empennage it was clear that just about everything I needed to learn about bucking, squeezing and back riveting had been experienced. The wings appeared to be just more of the same thanks to the CNC punching and the only thing I really missed was sealing the tanks. I kind of regretted getting the QB fuse because it appeared that there was some unique aluminum work that I would have enjoyed but that thought was dispelled once I got into the fiberglass work. The parts were a bit cruder back in 2008 than they are now but it’s still a lot of messy work.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,554
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
I did a pretty good approximation of the rivet count on my -6. 12-13K, IIRC. I did more or less the same thing on the -10 and got 18-20K. I promise it ain't 40K.
I'd gladly make that dollars and cents trade to go from my 1977 PA32 to a 2022 whatever. These planes are getting old.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 4,064
- Location
- The city of Townsville
- Display Name
Display name:
Mantis Toboggan, MD
Something like 12K on the -4. It's not that 12K rivets need to be set, it's that every rivet has at least two holes that had to be drilled, each hole has two sides that have to be deburred, and so on...
But these days you shake the box and an airplane falls out
Nauga,
thrilled to drill and fill
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,554
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Something like 12K on the -4. It's not that 12K rivets need to be set, it's that every rivet has at least two holes that had to be drilled, each hole has two sides that have to be deburred, and so on...
But these days you shake the box and an airplane falls out
Nauga,
The box for the -10 didn't say "Monogram" or "Hasegawa", I promise. ;-)
But, unlike your -4 or my -6, most of the holes were prepunched, so you have to be creative to screw it up really badly.