Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Home Builders and Sport Pilots' started by easik, May 6, 2018.
aaaannd they're off!! You guys think Cirroids are defensive, you haven't met the RV tribe......
"Somebody mentioning a story" on the internet.
Must be true.
That said, I think chutes are a great accessory when designed into an airframe. Not nearly as good as a retrofit where they usually do substantial damage to the utility of the airplane.
Well yes, mine is bigger than yours.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
That's a pretty good cruise speed on the sling. Rotax is really stepping it up with that turbo engine.
I’m holding off on paint until I’m done test flying. Not sure what that will add in weight but my total weight as she stands now is 1560. The interior items really don’t weight much as all. Some of it is offset with my composite blade and lithium battery.
It’s not a bad design. I don’t much care for those aluminum railing pieces, maybe wouldn’t notice on a dark color. For me it was more about the added complexity to the build.
.... or was it? Maybe I’m just being too macho-dick and luddite. Brs or bust!!!
Yep - be all you can be .
If you try hard enough and are skilled enough, you don’t even need an engine , flying without one will make for a real, real pilot .... and think about all the complexity of mounting it in the first place.
Rv or bust.
Engines are for airplane drivers. You are right, real pilots of plain ‘ol aircraft don’t need them... as long as we can get a tow.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zm97tp9u7onwfsd/Minden from the Air - 1992.rtf?dl=0
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
After you've flown in an RV-10, you wouldn't want to get your ass in a Sling
Just finished up a comparison between aircraft that include the RV-10, Sling TSi, Sling 4. I also included several rental aircraft: C172S ($135/hr), DA-40 ($145/hr), C177A ($130/hr Tach), C172F ($120/hr), and a C182TR ($200). I included several planes that I have considered buying: Cherokee 180, Cherokee 235, C182Q, Grumman Tiger, DA-40, and Beechcraft Sundowner. I took fixed cost (hanger, loan payment, insurance, average annuals) and divided that by 100 and then added it to the hourly cost (fuel, oil, engine and prop reserve) to calculate an operating cost for each aircraft. Then I planned a flight using 75% and 7500' to calculate fuel usage, number of stops, time in flight (ignoring winds) to several places that I like to fly ranging from 77 NM to 1638 NM. I then compared trip times and total cost of flight. For flight time I added 1 hour for each stop for fuel. The RV-10 was faster than both Sling aircraft even with more fuel stops. If you slowed the RV-10 down to 55% then its trip time would be almost identical to the Sling TSi flying at 75%. None of the other planes came close in trip times. I had planned using my entire family with luggage as a load, so most certified aircraft required more fuel stops. For operating cost, it largely depended on the purchase price of the plane and insurance. The 235 was the most expensive followed by the DA-40 and then the RV-10. All certified were used and not glass cockpits like the -10 would be. The -10 was just a little cheaper than renting the C182TR. Cheapest was almost always the C177A due to its wet rental based on tach time and 100% reimbursed fuel purchase. Almost everything except the four most expensive (235, DA-40, RV-10, and C182Q) were similar cost to rentals. Operating cost per trip was only 5-8% cheaper for the Sling TSi on any given trip compared to the -10. SO:
Cost - Sling (initial purchase, insurance, fuel)
Build Time - Sling
Kit Shipping - RV-10
Support - RV-10
Speed - RV-10
Range - Sling (at least with my family on board, even when you throttle the -10 back, LOP would help, but I didn't have numbers)
Short Field - RV-10
Ceiling - RV-10Looks - Sling
I think I made my choice, I like having the extra power for climbs and high altitude since I have family we like to visit in CO and I like having a little more support and US based company, just wish the -10 looked like the Sling. It isn't just the cowling, I like how the vertical stab transitions into the empennage and how the doors are done. I think comparing the Sling to the -10 says a lot about the Sling being a fantastic aircraft. It also says a lot about -10 since it is the gauge that other aircraft are compared to.
A bit of fiberglass work and you can add whatever dorsal fin you want to the -10's vertical stab.
Its the angle between it and the body, Al parts which would be a major design change. I did like the idea that the cowling could be done and some winglets similar to those on the TSi.
Take a look at this one. The cowl change is real bucks or real time. The empennage fairing change is minor.
That one also has a re-profiled aft top skin on the fuselage.
The Airplane Factory flying a Sling 4 TSI non-stop from California to Florida today. It was built with aux tanks in the wings and I believe they've added some bladders in the cabin for the flight. Follow the flight here:
Talking about ‘aesthetics’ on ‘high performance’ aircraft is kind of strange. Adding a good looking fairing here or there is not like adding a fin to an Edsel. Aircraft are all about aerodynamics. Fairings are typically added, and sometimes removed, to improve performance or handling, not to sell the next model year.
Now with that said, it has been observed that certain aircraft ‘look right’ and therefore fly right (think Mustang or DC3). Conversely it has been said that aircraft that don’t look right, tend to not fly right. I choose not to gore anyone’s ox here but instead will simply say that I buy into that as well.
But having been mistaken more than a few times for a Cirrus, and thinking the Cirrus is a very good looking aircraft, I think the RV10 looks just fine. Moreover I would never add a fin or fairing for aesthetic purposes. That is reserved for aircraft designers who are responsible for juggling aesthetic and performance design issues. And I can’t identify any performance related changes I would know to make to Van’s very fine design.
The Sling looks pretty fine as well though I prefer the look of the ‘10. To my eye it looks more like a ‘real’ airplane versus the Sling that looks like one of those LSAs with one of the funny sounding engines... but cut me some slack, I’m old.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Yeah . . . you may be old . . . but you sound pretty wise.
I’m old too!
I just got back from OSH and took a look at both birds. Overall, I tend to lean towards the Sling 4, but I just cant get over the thin aluminum they use for the build. Slightly pressing on the wings and empanage feels like squeezing a empty soda can. The Sling 4 on display had all kind of dents and it seems like this is something I would have to contend with for the life of the airplane. The RV10 on the other hand is much more rigid.
If we all had 200k we'd probably all have RV10s
RV 10 needs a build assist program. I eliminated it from my list because I don't want to take 3-5 years to build an airplane, even a really good one like an RV10.
Rapid Builder-Assist Program for the RV-10. Build one in our shops in 4 weeks. Finished with high-end Sikkens paint and a completely custom leather interior, we will help you put yourself in one of the best planes available today without investing 3-5 years building, so you can enjoy those years flying. We can also do your engine and avionics installations, or you can do that yourself. You don’t need prior building experience, because we will teach you what you need to know to build and maintain your RV-10.
So that's $65k for the QB kit, $35k for an engine, $30k for avionics and 160hrs*$100/hr=$16k for RBAP?
I don't see an engine or avionics for the $135k price at http://www.saintaviation.com/newrv/pricing.html
However, there is indeed a dollar value in time saved with any kind of build-help. Time is life's one un-renewable resource.
They need to get rid of the 51% rule and flood the EAB market with "pro" builders. I bet we can get that labor piece down. Frankly, I rather give someone 20K cold hard cash to assemble me a color by number airplane kit like these, than scavenger hunt for a simple gear actuator/housing/pivot/wing-spar/whatever, on some nickle and dime POS dinosaur for the same amount. I don't need to put a new engine or avionics on the thing either, so that would save me another bundle.
...that or get primary non-commercial. Oh wait that's dead. Yeah, def 51% rule then. That ---t's gotta go.
With build hours ranging from 1,000 - 2,000 hours, at a modest $50 per hour shop time, you're looking at $50-$100k labor to have a professional build assist.
I'm aware of that. My post was aspirational, hence the "we should get rid of" caveats in my post.
Just get rid of all cert requirements for GA airplanes. That would bring the cost way down.
lowering the bar
We can disagree about the line without resorting to mockery and hyperbole. Oh wait its POA. As you were, my fair logically fallacious sir.
@Jesse Saint , is this your place?
I don't disagree with the line. Hmmm....yes, I do disagree. Particularly with the "we need" part. Where we probably drift even further is on the long-term effects of such a change.
who can't always get what he wants