What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Help me think an RV-10/RV-14 Purchase Through

Toddsanderson

Well Known Member
Hi Folks,

I have been a lurker for awhile and might be interested in a 10 or 14, but I need some help. Warning- may be a long post, but appreciate input.

Anyway, first, let me tell you my history wand what I am now looking for. I have been flying for 30 years. I am a CFI, Multi-commercial, etc. Anymore, the majority of my flying is a 900NM trip from NE Indiana to SW FL 10-20 times per year.

Starting about 25 years ago (for the trip mentioned above) I started with a Turbo Saratoga and as the family grew I moved up into Barons, P Barons, and the Dukes. Once the kids went off to college I bought a couple of Glasair IIIs to make this trip since it was just me and my wife. Before purchasing the G3s, my wife developed general anxiety - not just about flying, but just about everything. Flying in just about anything (even when we take a Citation XLS) scares her; however, she is getting better as time goes.

Anyway, back to airplanes :) So, I absolutely LOVED the Glasair. 214 knots cruise on 12 GPH making the trip about 4:15 non-stop with 2 hours of fuel in reserve! 28 lb/ft wing loading for an exceptional ride, 2500 FPM climbs, descents at 275 knots indicated, yada yada. However, this plane scared my wife to death. It was just too much airplane for her to control (even more so than the Duke) and just scared her. So, I sold the G3 and bought a Cirrus G2 with avidyne upgrade to help her. Long story short, I absolutely HATED the Cirrus. It was a 166 knot airplane on 14.5 GPH which was acceptable, but nothing to get excited about considering how "clean" it was. The seats were hard, the finish cracking everywhere, the wheel pants were a PITA, flap speed too low, and maintenance cost as much, if not more, than my twin pressurized and turbocharged Duke. I was so unimpressed that I sold it 5 months after buying it for a big loss and was never happier to be rid of a plane. Of the 50 aircraft I have owned it was my least favorite. I bought it for the parachute to make the wife comfortable. I thought I could learn to love it - I was wrong.

Anyway, I know the RV10 and 14 have low wing loading and I think I can deal with that by picking days that all less bumpy, but I would like to hear some real world performance numbers and icing experiences. Yes, I know you are not to fly in ice, but let's face it, if you fly IMC in the winter you will find ice. I'm just curious to hear real world experience of how the RV handles the ice. The Glasair did not handle it well and the Cirrus was only slightly better. It had TKS, but it was a bad design on the early 22s.

I read the article posted about a turbo, flutter concerns, and other non approved modifications. It seems than Van has done well by sticking to tried and true methods. With that said, does anyone have real world experience with a turbo RV10 and also with the RDD electric anti-ice? Is there any real world numbers out there with a 300HP engine in the 10 (especially around 14k ft or so?) A little extra power is always nice in the climb on a bumpy day or to climb out of ice. I'm not looking for more top speed.

Finally, it appears the 14 might make more sense as I really don't need the rear seats, but it appears there are not many flying and rarely do they come available.

Thanks in advance for any input :)
 
I was told "The RV-10 handles ice well"... Not something I'm interested in finding out. I feel bad even repeating that.

The RDD kit isn't available anymore, I think there might be one flying RV-10 with it (so RDD used to say). I'm trying to come up with another option for deicing. - To everyone - PM me if you haven't already if you're actually interested in TKS, CAV said they'd be willing to design a kit if there was enough interest. I'm keeping a list. After much noodling on it, I think TKS would be the way to go on RVs due to the control horns.

I'd love extra power too, but there's not much room for anything heavier in W&B without adding extra weight in back, but then reducing useful load.


A lot of these things are questions that have been asked time and time again, and then the person asking ends up building a stock, dare I say vanilla, RV-10 that still does everything they need it to.
 
Hi Matt,

Thank you for the response. Yes, many of these questions have been asked, but the responses I have found is "I would not fly in ice" or "plane will fall apart above xxx speed" I was curious to hear those that have actually flown the plane in ice or have a 300HP or turbo engine.

I like the idea of TKS, but only if it is designed properly. On the Cirrus G2 the panels do not go far enough back on the wing making it essentially ineffective. On my Baron with TKS you could fly through freezing rain. There truly was no comparison. Again, I'm not looking to fly in the ice, just looking for the best tools to get out of it with the most help and power/de-ice usually is the answer.
 
I like the idea of TKS, but only if it is designed properly. On the Cirrus G2 the panels do not go far enough back on the wing making it essentially ineffective. On my Baron with TKS you could fly through freezing rain. There truly was no comparison. Again, I'm not looking to fly in the ice, just looking for the best tools to get out of it with the most help and power/de-ice usually is the answer.

This is the information I really like learning about deicing equipment, since I have no experience.

The IAS vs TAS issue is real, and is why there are very few RV-10s with high horsepower. Unfortunately, nobody has been willing to tackle the flutter limitations on the RV-10. I, unfortunately, don't have the knowledge to adequately understand what goes into resolving it properly. I know it won't fall apart at 202kias, but I don't have the tools (knowledge, etc) be certain it won't. I'm happy with the plane as it is. I'd love to cruise at 190kias, but not at the $50k higher price it would take over the Lycoming Thunderbolt.

As far as best bang for the buck, IMO you can't beat an RV-10.

Perhaps a custom built 4 cylinder with high HP and turbo normalized to the mid teens would be a fit for what you're looking for. I'm not sure it exists outside of a custom build. Something derived from a TIO-360-C1A6D. Could even do boots with the turbo.

I'm done thinking way outside the box, because I'm sure others will come in to say how terrible all those ideas are.
 
Roger that, thank you for the info.

After talking to a few folks I think the answer is actually a RV-14 with the IO-390. I'm hearing actual cruise speeds of 175 knots on 10 GPH or so. I don't need the rear seats and the light aerobatic capability is a plus also. I'm so spoiled by speed, so it is hard to look at slower planes. The F1 is pretty speedy, but it is getting into the same category as the Glasair in handling and scare factor for the wife.

The 14 and 10 are a nice compromise for safety and speed.

What I would really love to see is a 14 redesigned with high wing loading, 300 HP, and a BRS chute. My wife could care less about how the plane handles as long as she has that magic chute. A 200+ knot 14 that could handle the bumps and had a chute would go over well in my opinion. Then again, it wouldn't be an easy to fly plane for the masses and that is what Van is good at bringing to the market.
 
$.02

Not to be a nay sayer but looking at your requirements, the RV series may not be what you are looking for. They are great airplanes within their design envelopes but it appears what you want is outside of that envelope.

It would seem that an Epic LT might be more to your liking...or maybe a short body MU-2...just sayin?
 
I don't think you are going to get 900nm out of either of these aircraft unless you fit extra tanks. I've just done 630nm flight LOP, 10.0 usg/hr, 158kts TAS with a slight tailwind. Just under 4 hours - landed with 17usg.

So, realistically, you are looking at 750nm max
 
I agree guys. The RV-14 is a good compromise. Simple fixed gear, reasonable speeds, simple maintenance, fairly roomy cabin. If I was going back to a critical wing plane it would be a G3. I have no interest in a certified plane as I already have a nice V35 with 300HP.

I will have to make a fuel stop in the RV and that is fine. I like the support the RV has. If anyone sees a nice 14 for sale please let me know. I am patient.

Thank you for the replies!
 
Hi Todd, in our RV14A my only complaint is it needs a side baggage door. We get 172 Kts. TAS at 11ish gph. My neighbors RV10 is as fast or even 3 or 4 kts faster, but burns more. I like the baggage door on the 10 makes loading much easier.
 
Hi Todd, in our RV14A my only complaint is it needs a side baggage door. We get 172 Kts. TAS at 11ish gph. My neighbors RV10 is as fast or even 3 or 4 kts faster, but burns more. I like the baggage door on the 10 makes loading much easier.

Hello thank you for that info. I am very use to the Glasair baggage which was much worse than the 14. In the Glasair you had to crawl on the wing as there was no step and then had to shoe horn bags into the rear through the small doors. We carry very few bags anyway as most of our stuff is at our homes.

On the speed I am finding very different opinions. I am hearing a consistent 172-178 knots on the 14 burning 10-12 GPH depending on altitude and power setting and am hearing 152-168 knots on the 10 with burns from 13-18 GPH.

In my Glasair I usually ran around 12-14k ft pulling about 60-62% power and could get the BFSC down to .39 yielding 11.4 to 12 GPH when 20-40 DLOP.

Doing the math on a 14 pulling the same percentage of power should yield 8.5-9 GPH LOP and probably 10.5-12.5 ROP.

The math on a 260 HP 10 woks out to 10.4 GPH 40 DLOP and probably 12-13 ROP, again at 62%. If they are burning 17-18 GPH they have to be way rich and running more than 75%.

Is there anyone getting 170+ knots on a 10 running it LOP?
 
My 10 is a solid 160KTS plane on 11.5 GPH LOP, near GW, WOT @ 2350rpm, from 8 to 10K. I can go faster but have to burn a lot more gas to do -- I prefer to have greater endurance especially IFR. For comfort purposes I typically fly no more than 3-hr legs which give me plenty of IFR reserves. The end result is I can be 1000nm from home in 6-7 hrs.

I've picked up some light rime ice on occasion with no ill effects, but icing is really something I took pains to avoid (flying a lot in the mid-Atlantic this can be difficult but to impossible to do but with diligent flight planning and personal mins. it can be done. Highly recommend adding WeatherSpork to your flight planning tool kit). Anyway, FIKI is just not something that I'd care to dive into for an experimental, even one as poplar as an RV. Just too many unknowns as to the behavior of the airfoil and airframe across the range of ice accumulation possibilities plus the behavior that various applications of anti-ice/de-ice would have. Anecdotal posts like mine aren't a substitute for a true a FIKI program. YMMV.....
 
My 10 is a solid 160KTS plane on 11.5 GPH LOP, near GW, WOT @ 2350rpm, from 8 to 10K. I can go faster but have to burn a lot more gas to do -- I prefer to have greater endurance especially IFR. For comfort purposes I typically fly no more than 3-hr legs which give me plenty of IFR reserves. The end result is I can be 1000nm from home in 6-7 hrs.

I've picked up some light rime ice on occasion with no ill effects, but icing is really something I took pains to avoid (flying a lot in the mid-Atlantic this can be difficult but to impossible to do but with diligent flight planning and personal mins. it can be done. Highly recommend adding WeatherSpork to your flight planning tool kit). Anyway, FIKI is just not something that I'd care to dive into for an experimental, even one as poplar as an RV. Just too many unknowns as to the behavior of the airfoil and airframe across the range of ice accumulation possibilities plus the behavior that various applications of anti-ice/de-ice would have. Anecdotal posts like mine aren't a substitute for a true a FIKI program. YMMV.....


Thank you for that information. Your account of 160 knots and roughly 12 GPH appears to be in line with other claims and those doing 170+ knots are running ROP in the 15 GPH+ area.

I think that puts me over the top looking for a 14. I know 15 knots does not seem like much, but it means the world to me as most of my trips are day long x country. Headwinds really make a difference in the percentage of slowdown and every little bit of extra speed helps. Thanks for all the input.
 
Thank you for that information. Your account of 160 knots and roughly 12 GPH appears to be in line with other claims and those doing 170+ knots are running ROP in the 15 GPH+ area.

SNIP

As with any RV, efficient cruise speed is a result of many factors:
- Rigging. How clean is the plane?
- Weight. There are some real fat boy RV-10s out there.
- Prop. There are smooth props and there are efficient props. I have never found one that is both.
- Drag reduction. I found opportunities to work that on my RV-10.
- Balancing injectors to get smooth LOP operation (I changed out 4 of the 6 injectors, taking the original GAMI spread of over a gallon per hour to 0.1 gallons per hour).
- Pilot proficiently at effectively managing the engine.

I offer if you spend the time and strive toward efficient cruise on an RV-10 build, 170+ knots at 10.5 - 11.5 gph at altitude is achievable. With 5+ hours of endurance you can really get someplace.

My experience flying an RV-14A (not my plane) drove these rules home for me. It had a very smooth (and expensive) composite prop that failed to deliver, rigging was what I would call standard for most RVs, and the plane was very light. It was slower than my RV-10 and really did not burn that much less gas.

Carl
 
As with any RV, efficient cruise speed is a result of many factors:
- Rigging. How clean is the plane?
- Weight. There are some real fat boy RV-10s out there.
- Prop. There are smooth props and there are efficient props. I have never found one that is both.
- Drag reduction. I found opportunities to work that on my RV-10.
- Balancing injectors to get smooth LOP operation (I changed out 4 of the 6 injectors, taking the original GAMI spread of over a gallon per hour to 0.1 gallons per hour).
- Pilot proficiently at effectively managing the engine.

I offer if you spend the time and strive toward efficient cruise on an RV-10 build, 170+ knots at 10.5 - 11.5 gph at altitude is achievable. With 5+ hours of endurance you can really get someplace.

My experience flying an RV-14A (not my plane) drove these rules home for me. It had a very smooth (and expensive) composite prop that failed to deliver, rigging was what I would call standard for most RVs, and the plane was very light. It was slower than my RV-10 and really did not burn that much less gas.

Carl

Agree completely Carl. My Last Glasair was about 15 knots faster than the average Glasair out there. I had the injectors to within .2, proper rigging and gear door alignment along with correct baffling. Engine cooling drag is a big deal in many planes.

I usually look for averages to make a determination and so far I am not seeing anyone less than 170 knots LOP in a 14 and some are showing actual straight an level TAS of 175 to 178 knots on 10 GPH. Neither the 10 or the 14 is going to make the trip non-stop, so I want to go as fast as possible, but still be LOP for engine longevity. The fuel savings is just a bonus on the checkbook. I will likely fly the plane 200 hours per year, so if I save $2500 a year in gas that will buy my insurance and some maintenance every year. Engine maintenance is also about 30% less on a 4 cylinder vs 6 as well. If I needed 4 seats I would then have to decide if it would make sense to give up my 170 knot V35 for the 10. One of the big reasons for the new plane is to have the avionics I have come accustomed to. My V35 has triple aspens, 55x, 430ws, etc, but they suck as compared to the G3X touch and integrated autopilot. Putting certified avionics that are 8x more $ to match the G3x in the V35 just doesn't make sense.

If the 10 could be considered a "safe" plane with a 300-350HP engine under the cowl I would be all over that idea. Might be a 190 knot airplane up at altitude with the engine, but then again we are talking about getting into uncharted flutter, possibly higher insurance, etc.
 
You did catch that Vne is based on TAS, right? On the RVs, it's not an IAS number.

Just a note of caution about pushing the Vne number. There are a few derivatives of the RV series that succeed in that. The successful ones have generally made some physical changes to raise the flutter speed. Even the Rocket, often mentioned in that group, though, have had a few flutter issues. It takes specialized knowledge to raise the flutter speed in a responsible manner.

Beyond that, though, it takes time. Any change takes far more time than seems at all reasonable when you're thinking about it, and the changes that you'd need to make would necessarily have to happen early in the project. You can't take an existing, built RV and simply drive it fast.

Dave
 
You did catch that Vne is based on TAS, right? On the RVs, it's not an IAS number.

Just a note of caution about pushing the Vne number. There are a few derivatives of the RV series that succeed in that. The successful ones have generally made some physical changes to raise the flutter speed. Even the Rocket, often mentioned in that group, though, have had a few flutter issues. It takes specialized knowledge to raise the flutter speed in a responsible manner.

Beyond that, though, it takes time. Any change takes far more time than seems at all reasonable when you're thinking about it, and the changes that you'd need to make would necessarily have to happen early in the project. You can't take an existing, built RV and simply drive it fast.

Dave

Yes, I agree on all accounts and that is why I struggle with the 10 or really any RV from a performance standpoint. It is a 160 knot plane on 12 GPH and the 14 is a 175 knot plane on 10 GPH.

The G3 was such an overbuilt air frame that speed did not matter. Jeff LeVelle was turning 420 MPH TAS laps in his unmodified G3 airframe. That was 100 MPH over VNE. I routinely descended well over 300 knots TAS in my G3 with no problem at all.

I realize I need to compromise as I know I can't have the strength of my old G3, high wing loading, near zero risk of flutter, and still have a docile plane like the 14 to keep the wife happy. It is all just trade offs.
 
One stop shopping

I get you didnt like the cirrus, but if you really want something between a glasair and RV, there is the Lancair IV that will meet the turbo, altitude and speed requirements, but not sure its below 18GPH, also hard to insure because requires a higher skill level, which it sounds like you have. The seating can be more like a Nissan 350z than a maxima however, but there is a side baggage door, etc.. too much? fine than how about the Lancair ES pressurized? both great higher altitude aircraft. I went this route in my thought process, hence my bringing them up.
Honestly, you would be better guided with this site- https://www.myrv14.com/commentary/RV10_or_RV14.html
Best of success coming to your conclusion.

Pascal
-10
 
On the other hand, how about chartering a jet for your trips? No airplane to maintain, no need to be current, no worries about pressurization or oxygen usage or flight planning, and there might even be an attentive cabin crew. Just call 'em up and go.

As Scott Gassaway used to say,

"There's a simpler way and a better plan:
Have it done by another man."

Dave
 
On the other hand, how about chartering a jet for your trips? No airplane to maintain, no need to be current, no worries about pressurization or oxygen usage or flight planning, and there might even be an attentive cabin crew. Just call 'em up and go.

As Scott Gassaway used to say,

"There's a simpler way and a better plan:
Have it done by another man."

Dave

Yeah, we do that also on a Citation XLS+, but it is expensive. I feel bad every time I do it.
 
I get you didnt like the cirrus, but if you really want something between a glasair and RV, there is the Lancair IV that will meet the turbo, altitude and speed requirements, but not sure its below 18GPH, also hard to insure because requires a higher skill level, which it sounds like you have. The seating can be more like a Nissan 350z than a maxima however, but there is a side baggage door, etc.. too much? fine than how about the Lancair ES pressurized? both great higher altitude aircraft. I went this route in my thought process, hence my bringing them up.
Honestly, you would be better guided with this site- https://www.myrv14.com/commentary/RV10_or_RV14.html
Best of success coming to your conclusion.

Pascal
-10

The Lancair IVP is a fine plane with a very critical wing. The insurance is just too high and I am not going to school to fly it to keep the insurance. I am considering the Lancair Super ES as a compromise. The ES-P is faster and more comfortable, but the extra maintenance with the turbo and the higher insurance just isnt worth it. THe advantage of the ES over the 14 is the ability to make my trip non-stop.
 
Todd,
It sounds like you are looking for an airplane with the speed of your corporate jet, but in a personal airplane that you can fly relatively economically. I don?t think that airplane exists in the RV community, relative to your requirements for speed and economy. Even if you are willing to sacrifice some speed with an acceptable fuel burn, you won?t get there based on your stated requirements. What you are sacrificing with any other non-RV design is flying qualities. If you are willing to sacrifice flying qualities for speed, then what is wrong with your Glasair III? It doesn?t have very good harmonized controls, and it isn?t very comfortable, or able to carry much baggage, and the runway requirements are a little more restrictive, but if it meets your mission profile, what?s wrong with it?
Vans airplanes are state of the art in terms of ?Total Performance?. An F-16, or T-38 may handle as well, but for normal human beings paying the bill, you just can?t get any better in the flying qualities game than an RV. If your only goal is to go fast with very low fuel burn, while sacrificing stable flying qualities, then there are other choices. They are expensive. Seems like renting or chartering might be a better choice when you need to get somewhere quickly in an airplane you don?t own.
 
So your wife has anxiety and you squeeze her into a Glassair and fly her in IFR and icing conditions? Ever considered buying her a first class airline ticket and picking her up at the airport after you arrive, unload the luggage, and get a car? At least on the hard IFR days?
 
Todd,
It sounds like you are looking for an airplane with the speed of your corporate jet, but in a personal airplane that you can fly relatively economically. I don?t think that airplane exists in the RV community, relative to your requirements for speed and economy. Even if you are willing to sacrifice some speed with an acceptable fuel burn, you won?t get there based on your stated requirements. What you are sacrificing with any other non-RV design is flying qualities. If you are willing to sacrifice flying qualities for speed, then what is wrong with your Glasair III? It doesn?t have very good harmonized controls, and it isn?t very comfortable, or able to carry much baggage, and the runway requirements are a little more restrictive, but if it meets your mission profile, what?s wrong with it?
Vans airplanes are state of the art in terms of ?Total Performance?. An F-16, or T-38 may handle as well, but for normal human beings paying the bill, you just can?t get any better in the flying qualities game than an RV. If your only goal is to go fast with very low fuel burn, while sacrificing stable flying qualities, then there are other choices. They are expensive. Seems like renting or chartering might be a better choice when you need to get somewhere quickly in an airplane you don?t own.

No, that is not what I said, but I agree with you. Actually the G3 in the hands of a qualified pilot is an exceptionally safe plane while being fast and efficient. It is a terrifying plane to a passenger that is unwilling/afraid to learn to fly it. I think the RV14 is a nice compromise and I am willing to consider it. I also like the Lancair ES for the same reasons. I really don't care about the fuel burn. We burn 270 gallons per hour in the XLS and it doesn't concern me, but it requires two pilots and is a waste of money to go to our second home for just two of us for that reason. If it was just me I would be in a Lancair IVP with liability only insurance and not worry about it. The fact is that I have a wife that I love greatly and want her to be comfortable. I think the 14 has a very non intimidating profile and I think I could teach a my wife to fly in it due to it's simplicity and being so easy to fly. My other option is to simply send her on the airlines and me fly what I want or maybe take the XLS with her. I just can't stand the airlines. Until I can't fly anymore I would rather pay 10x as much and go on my own terms.
 
So your wife has anxiety and you squeeze her into a Glassair and fly her in IFR and icing conditions? Ever considered buying her a first class airline ticket and picking her up at the airport after you arrive, unload the luggage, and get a car? At least on the hard IFR days?

Never flew her in the ice in the Glasair. IFR in the Glasair is smoother than any piston airplane out there due to the wing loading. The cabin width is wider than most GA airplanes.

The problem is with the skill it takes to fly the plane and if you are a non pilot passenger and have no stomach for learning to fly the plane it is a non-starter.

Remember, She is nervous in a Cabin Class Duke or King Air at 25k ft in smooth air riding in the back. The fear is being alone in the plane if I die while flying. I need her in something that she can either pull the handle and float to the ground, land herself, or that has two pilots that she trusts.
 
Never flew her in the ice in the Glasair. IFR in the Glasair is smoother than any piston airplane out there due to the wing loading. The cabin width is wider than most GA airplanes.

The problem is with the skill it takes to fly the plane and if you are a non pilot passenger and have no stomach for learning to fly the plane it is a non-starter.

Remember, She is nervous in a Cabin Class Duke or King Air at 25k ft in smooth air riding in the back. The fear is being alone in the plane if I die while flying. I need her in something that she can either pull the handle and float to the ground, land herself, or that has two pilots that she trusts.

With all due respect, it sounds like you already had the airplane that suited your demands, just not the airplane that met her needs. You're asking to make an RV into something it wasn't really meant to be.
 
ES-P w/ BRS?

I love the -10 but maybe the Lancair ES-P in St Louis listed on Controller might fit your needs. I know nothing of the plane, but have been familiarizing myself with single-engine pressurized options and drooled over this one lately.

Seems like its installed BRS chute, some de-icing capability and efficient speed touch a couple of the big items on your wish list.

And if it doesn?t work out for your wife?s comfort level after purchase, maybe I could buy it from you (at a discount! ;) ) and see if my GA-hesitant wife likes that better than our -10. :D

Seriously though, I hope you find a good match to keep flying GA.
 
With all due respect, it sounds like you already had the airplane that suited your demands, just not the airplane that met her needs. You're asking to make an RV into something it wasn't really meant to be.

I agree, but BRS now had kits for the RV series, so that might be an option. The performance of the 14 is pretty good considering how docile it is.
 
I love the -10 but maybe the Lancair ES-P in St Louis listed on Controller might fit your needs. I know nothing of the plane, but have been familiarizing myself with single-engine pressurized options and drooled over this one lately.

Seems like its installed BRS chute, some de-icing capability and efficient speed touch a couple of the big items on your wish list.

And if it doesn?t work out for your wife?s comfort level after purchase, maybe I could buy it from you (at a discount! ;) ) and see if my GA-hesitant wife likes that better than our -10. :D

Seriously though, I hope you find a good match to keep flying GA.

The Super ES with BRS would be a good plane and the ES-P is a good option. I was hoping to stay away from another Turbo plane, but it is an option. I probably need to have her ride in a 14 or 10 to see if it a possibility.
 
V35 to a RV-10

I flew my V35 for 25 years. It did not have tip tanks and my personal minimum is to land at my destination with 1 hour of fuel on board. This made planing IFR flights with a alternative short. Three years ago I started building a 10 to replace it. With the lower fuel burn and the fact both I and my wife are retired. And can be flexible about time, serious IFR can be avoided. Also with the lower fuel burn the range will be better. At my age and the fact she is not a pilot, is making me consider the BRS chute. Also if you remove the rear seats and add a fuselage tank, the range will be longer than most bladders can stand and will have huge luggage capacity for a two place. Add cold air induction and electronic ignition and high compression pistons and you will have more than the stock 260 HP.
Just my thoughts
Tom
 
Good points Tom,

I currently have a V35 with a IO-550. It is consistently a 166-170 knot plane on roughly 12 GPH at 11k ft. It's just getting long in the tooth. 50 year old systems just get tired. It has a nice triple Aspen Stack, but it just isn't the same as the new experimental stuff and the certified versions of the exp equipment is 5-10x as much money.

If I do buy another plane it will have fixed gear for sure and a modern panel. I'm not ready for retirement yet, but it makes sense to save money and have what you want before retiring.

I appreciate all the input.
 
Hi again Todd, we haven?t had our 14A up to 12-14 thousand feet and done a fuel flow check. I did get 178 KTS TAS and 11 even on fuel flow on my trip south in March. This was at 9500 with a OAT of 6F.
We have 135 hours on the engine, it may do a little better when fully broke in.
Bob Bisbee
1/2 14A
 
Hi again Todd, we haven?t had our 14A up to 12-14 thousand feet and done a fuel flow check. I did get 178 KTS TAS and 11 even on fuel flow on my trip south in March. This was at 9500 with a OAT of 6F.
We have 135 hours on the engine, it may do a little better when fully broke in.
Bob Bisbee
1/2 14A

Thanks Bob, that is a good reference. At 135 hours you are fully broken in.
 
It was kind of tongue in cheek. Beech only builds about 10-15 a year at this point.

Yeah, I know. I have owned just about every Baron produced along with a couple of Duke's and Bonanzas. The new Beechcraft products do not excite me at all. I don't see the value.
 
No matter which you choose (sounds like the -14), give Lycon a call and talk to them about getting the most performance out of your engine without having to go turbo.

You might also consider working with SynergyAir for a build assist to get that new air plane smell in a relatively short time period.
 
Back
Top