An apples to oranges comparison

I know the RV-10 and Mooney 201 ('94) is not a direct comparison in the slightest, but I am very drawn toward the Mooney's efficiency in the air. Shoulder and head room arguments removed, how does the 10's numbers stack up against normal real-world Mooney numbers? Anybody have a yardstick?

Thanks
David
(looking for comparisons, not flames

I really love the look of the Mooney. If I was not about to build, the Mooney would be the one I would buy. What really draws me back though is having to foot those large maintenance bills done by Joe Shmow because he has the "A&P" paper in the wallet.

If I can do my own maintenance (100%) on a Mooney, then I'd have one. Love those machines. I think the closest plane to resemble the Mooney is the Lancair 2 seater. A 2 seater doesn't meat the family mission. Lancair's 4 seater is 250K+!!!!

Mooney has some speed at great economy. An early model can be had for 40k, but it's 30 years old. Thats okay, I'll build.

David....so far....

...no other certified single, retractable or otherwise, has outrun a -10. They've outrun Bonanza's, Cessna 210's, Mooneys of all sorts, Comanches and Cirri....maybe not the newer, cleaner Cirrus, but I'd love to give it a try.

Best,

Last month I ferried an RV-10 from our location back to its owner. Another pilot followed me down in one of the company Mooneys, a 2001 Ovation. Along the way we were comparing true airspeeds, and I remember that the RV-10 was slightly slower, by 5 knots or less. However, this RV-10 has a composite prop, which is known for smoothness but not for top-end speed. Not to mention, I wasn't exactly flogging the RV. I imagine with a Hartzell up front, the RV-10 would have easily run right with the Ovation, and maybe even beaten it.

Of course, on the trip back in the Mooney, I was already missing the takeoff performance, interior room, and cockpit visibility of the RV-10! I want one.

mcb

...no other certified single, retractable or otherwise, has outrun a -10.

Click to expand...

RV-10 183 kts (260HP per Vans)
Ovation 2GX 191 kts (+8 kts)
Ovation 3 197 kts (+14 kts)
Acclaim Type S 242 kts (+59 kts)
350 Corvalis 191 kts (+8 kts)
400 Corvalis TT 235 kts (+52 kts)
Cirrus 22 Turbo 219 kts (+36 kts)

If you really want a fast single, Grumman made a couple of civilian Bearcats (G-58A). Not sure where you can find one though.

Hi David,

I had an M20J (201) for 12 years. It was a 1978 which I had upgraded to the 1996 MSE level with the appropriate fairings/speed mods etc. It would do 158 to 162 ktas at 8k density whenever you needed it--and I flew it like that all the time--wide open throttle and around 2500 rpm was its sweet spot.

It could not, however, compete with the RV10 for top speed/roominess/or load hauling ability--although with the 200hp Lyc it did burn less fuel than the 6 banger Lyc in the RV10. For two people and a lot of baggage it was great, for three and some baggage still good, for four people I could not fill the tanks--although the darn thing held 66 gallons (I could not sit in it that long)!!

My 180 hp RV9a with its fp Catto prop out performs my old Mooney in every category except being able to haul four souls. Looking at my log books over the 12 years that I owned it, I had 4 in it maybe 5 times!

As mentioned, it is a high performance retrac, and as such the maintenance is substantially more than it would be with a 10 EVEN if you had to take your home built to a certified mechanic--if you build the RV10 yourself there is no comparison.

The Mooney is a beautiful/strong airframe and if you could spring for the normally aspirated Ovation 3 you would have a cross country flyer capable of 190+ ktas--but be prepared for significant $ at annual time.

If you have the time and ability--build the RV10!!!

Hope this is of value.

Cheers,

db

pierre smith said:

...no other certified single, retractable or otherwise, has outrun a -10. They've outrun Bonanza's, Cessna 210's, Mooneys of all sorts, Comanches and Cirri....maybe not the newer, cleaner Cirrus, but I'd love to give it a try.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you mean "piston single", right? Pretty sure most of the modern production turbine singles (TBM, Meridian/JetProp, PC-12) would stomp the -10. And although it's not "certified", there's the L-39

If we're talking piston singles, I'd think the Mooney Acclaim (M20TN) could do it. The Columbia 400 would be close - the POH claims 182kt TAS at ISA, SL and 204kt TAS at 10k ISA.

However, these beasts are all turbo engines, and the -10 is NA, at least per Van's. Where the -10 beats the pants off all of them is in efficiency.

TODR

pierre smith said:

...no other certified single, retractable or otherwise, has outrun a -10. They've outrun Bonanza's, Cessna 210's, Mooneys of all sorts, Comanches and Cirri....maybe not the newer, cleaner Cirrus, but I'd love to give it a try.

Best,

Click to expand...

<edit - everyone else beat me...> Despite the fact that a couple of production planes might outrun the 10 by a bit, there is that pesky price issue, and on that the -10 wins hands-down... <end edit>

Of course, there is the Lancair ES - the kit-cousin to the Cessna 300. Again, you will spend quite a bit more money for those precious extra knots.

One to watch that might give the -10 a run for the money from a value perspective is the Ravin 500 (a kit from South Africa modeled after the original Comanche). Kit cost is only a tad more than the -10; speed is advertised as considerably faster; and useful load is an incredible 1700 lbs. Stall speed is a bit higher, but the stubby gear do look up to the task of landing on short/grass runways. Adept Airmotive is currently assembling one to test their 320hp turbonormalized engine on, which would make it even faster while saving 100-200 lbs over an IO-540 (of course, their engine might do the same for the -10, but might also propel you right past Vne). The Ravin has plenty of Vne "headroom" compared to the -10 (according to an old email I have from them), so more hp and/or turbos need not cause you to "throttle back."

Even more interesting is that Ravin is currently working on duplicating Piper's evolution of the Comanche to a twin engine version. How about a pair of IO-390's anyone? Or, a pair of DeltaHawk 200hp Diesels for a 2,000 mile range? Oh, my poor bladder - but with 400hp for climb and the ability to throttle back to 5gph/engine, with such an airplane you could easily cross either pond.

By the way, you COULD build a Ravin with a single DeltaHawk. Apparently they ARE delivering engines now.

So, there are some options.

BUT (and I fly a plastic airplane) - there is no other community so helpful as the RV community. Just as with individual aircraft components, support is a KEY component of any product. Factor that in accordingly!

breister said:

One to watch that might give the -10 a run for the money from a value perspective is the Ravin 500 (a kit from South Africa modeled after the original Comanche). Kit cost is only a tad more than the -10;

Click to expand...

Ravin 500 Kit Price: $86,995

300 kit varies according to your needs and specifications but rough estimates are between $62,000-$77,000.

Raven ??

So I saw this thread and figured I'd check out the Raven website to see what the deal was. As far as I could see, the Raven is a total glass airplane. Any thoughts?

xavierm said:

Ravin 500 Kit Price: $86,995

300 kit varies according to your needs and specifications but rough estimates are between $62,000-$77,000.

Click to expand...

Yes, I said "value" not "price." When you factor in better speed AND 35% greater useful load, and then consider resale prices, I suspect that this kit will be somewhere in the vicinity of $50-100k more in resale price than a comparably equipped -10.

Never fear, Vans is still the price leader!

ppilotmike said:

So I saw this thread and figured I'd check out the Raven website to see what the deal was. As far as I could see, the Raven is a total glass airplane. Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Many discussions on glass vs. metal on this forum. As a glass flyer, I'd be considered "biased" - but I'll tell you I think they both have their place. The nice thing about the glass planes is that there are almost zero cases of an airplane coming apart for exceeding Vne (say, momentarily in a dive) and the Vne tends to be based on indicated, rather than True, airspeed. That means if you want to shove a bigger engine in it you generally can (if it will fit).

Metal is generally simpler to construct, easier to sell, cheaper to insure. Too, you get the golden opportunity to land gear up in many of the glass planes, something that doesn't happen nearly as much in the Van's models.

It all comes down to your intended mission, and which compromises you as a builder/flyer are willing to make.

breister said:

<edit - everyone else beat me...> Despite the fact that a couple of production planes might outrun the 10 by a bit, there is that pesky price issue, and on that the -10 wins hands-down... <end edit>

Of course, there is the Lancair ES - the kit-cousin to the Cessna 300. Again, you will spend quite a bit more money for those precious extra knots.

One to watch that might give the -10 a run for the money from a value perspective is the Ravin 500 (a kit from South Africa modeled after the original Comanche). Kit cost is only a tad more than the -10; speed is advertised as considerably faster; and useful load is an incredible 1700 lbs. Stall speed is a bit higher, but the stubby gear do look up to the task of landing on short/grass runways. Adept Airmotive is currently assembling one to test their 320hp turbonormalized engine on, which would make it even faster while saving 100-200 lbs over an IO-540 (of course, their engine might do the same for the -10, but might also propel you right past Vne). The Ravin has plenty of Vne "headroom" compared to the -10 (according to an old email I have from them), so more hp and/or turbos need not cause you to "throttle back."

Even more interesting is that Ravin is currently working on duplicating Piper's evolution of the Comanche to a twin engine version. How about a pair of IO-390's anyone? Or, a pair of DeltaHawk 200hp Diesels for a 2,000 mile range? Oh, my poor bladder - but with 400hp for climb and the ability to throttle back to 5gph/engine, with such an airplane you could easily cross either pond.

By the way, you COULD build a Ravin with a single DeltaHawk. Apparently they ARE delivering engines now.

So, there are some options.

BUT (and I fly a plastic airplane) - there is no other community so helpful as the RV community. Just as with individual aircraft components, support is a KEY component of any product. Factor that in accordingly!

Click to expand...

Good strong plane. Ovation type speed. Cramped inside. Heavy slow controls ,not a nice handling plane like the RV.
Also why build a kit that looks like a plane that was released in 1958?
I have owned a Commanche before and have flown the Ravin, so speak from experience.
I think a lancair or 10 are better bets.

OK...........I'll end the argument here..........sorry to be the party pooper!

We spent about 190-200K of your Yankee Dollars for a really nice IFR RV-10.

Bang for Buck....NOTHING.....let me repat for any har of hearing folk....NOTHING beats it..........or we would own it!!!!!

Its as simple as that.

Someone mentioned value........

DB

rv72004 said:

Good strong plane. Ovation type speed. Cramped inside. Heavy slow controls ,not a nice handling plane like the RV.
Also why build a kit that looks like a plane that was released in 1958?
I have owned a Commanche before and have flown the Ravin, so speak from experience.
I think a lancair or 10 are better bets.

Click to expand...

Ok first things first: I am not trying to promote any particular airplane. I do know there is a bias on this forum, and I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from their own preference.

That said, the RV-10 looks a lot like a Piper from 1958 with a better paint job. That's not a bad thing - it's a pretty airplane. Done up in glass, the Ravin looks like Piper WISHED it would look in 1958. To each their own.

I'll take your word on "cramped," although I find it surprising since Comanches weren't at all cramped - did they scale it down, or is that just in comparison to a -10?

RV10inOz said:

OK...........I'll end the argument here..........sorry to be the party pooper!

Click to expand...

Hehe - you'll never "end" the argument as long as different people find different things "valuable.. We ALL benefit from the existence of different vendors to choose from!

We spent about 190-200K of your Yankee Dollars for a really nice IFR RV-10.

Bang for Buck....NOTHING.....let me repat for any har of hearing folk....NOTHING beats it..........or we would own it!!!!!

Its as simple as that.

Someone mentioned value........

Click to expand...

Price is not "value," it is simply price. As such, it is reflected in RESALE price - and which one will come out ahead there only the free market can tell us. Kia wins on price, but Lexus and BMW are frequently considered as more valuable by some people. And no, I'm not calling RVs "the Kia's of the air" so please put away your flamethrower!

As I said, the -10 wins on price. But, if you want/need 1,800 lbs useful load or 11+ hours' ferry range to cross the entire Outback in one hop, the other two (-10; Lancair) come up short. So, once again (as always) perceived VALUE comes down to personal preference and mission requirements.

All in all I'm certain that the -10 will remain the most popular for quite some time, and I'm personally glad our market is big enough to provide a variety of models for us to pick from.

breister said:

...I'll take your word on "cramped," although I find it surprising since Comanches weren't at all cramped - did they scale it down, or is that just in comparison to a -10?...

Click to expand...

Yes they did. IIRC the Raven is a 7/8 scale Comanche but in talking with them at OSH this year they said it had more interior room. I'm not sure how they did that exactly.

As for strength, it is stressed for something like 10G's +/- and has a 1200 mile range.

N941WR said:

Yes they did. IIRC the Raven is a 7/8 scale Comanche but in talking with them at OSH this year they said it had more interior room. I'm not sure how they did that exactly.

As for strength, it is stressed for something like 10G's +/- and has a 1200 mile range.

Click to expand...

Interesting - well, every airframe is a set of trade offs. Me, I'm not a huge fellow so I doubt I would notice it.

The literature said it carries 160 gallons of fuel, and thus I can believe the range figures from their chart:

Cruising Range (75% power at 6,300ft) 2,278mi 213mph (too low!)
Cruising Range (65% power at 10,500ft) 2,531mi speed not provided

That's trans-oceanic range, stopping at the islands! Better wear diapers, though...



I'm still intrigued by the idea of an experimental light twin. Extrapolating the information above using two 200hp diesels, 213mph@ 16,500' (using cannulas for O2) should take a bit over 40% hp per engine, or something like 4.8gph per engine. Even if you aren't crossing an ocean, that' still almost 25mpg for a 4 seater travelling over 210mph!

My neighbor was actually shopping for a Mooney and he'd never seen an RV-10 so I gave him a list of side-by-side specs. The next weekend he arranged a demo ride in an RV-10, which is what he now owns today.

The Mooney may be fast, but it sacrifices a lot of the payload, comfort, short-field performance, etc. Overall, I feel the RV-10 has more utility and it's more enjoyable to own and fly.

However, this isn't an apples to apples comparrison when you compare price. The availability of an old/affordable Mooney is something to think about.

RV10inOz said:

OK...........I'll end the argument here..........sorry to be the party pooper!

We spent about 190-200K of your Yankee Dollars for a really nice IFR RV-10.

Bang for Buck....NOTHING.....let me repat for any har of hearing folk....NOTHING beats it..........or we would own it!!!!!

Its as simple as that.

Someone mentioned value........

DB

Click to expand...

And heck!! for about 235-240k of some YANKEE dollars you can buy mine!! I want to build something else...