VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-10
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-06-2018, 03:30 PM
rocketbob's Avatar
rocketbob rocketbob is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 8I3
Posts: 3,030
Default

Like many things "it depends."

On a properly, well taken-care of Comanche it takes about an hour to go thru the gear and do the retraction tests.

There are a couple of problem areas with the transmission, conduits (cables that operate the gear), and bungees (they assist the gear and take some of the loads off the transmission) and they need to be replaced every three years.

If they don't get replaced, there are ripple effects that affect the life of other components.

If its kept clean, greased, bungees changed on schedule and assuming nothing is wrong with the items above, then it doesn't cost any more to maintain than fixed
gear.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/tq3yHzjSQzPChYyD6
__________________
Bob Japundza CFI A&PIA
N55BC RV-6 borrowed, flying
N678X F1 Rocket, under const.
N244BJ RV-6 "victim of SNF tornado" 1200+ hrs, rebuilding
N8155F C150 flying
N7925P PA-24-250 Comanche, restoring
Not a thing I own is stock.

Last edited by rocketbob : 11-06-2018 at 03:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-06-2018, 10:01 PM
gmcjetpilot's Avatar
gmcjetpilot gmcjetpilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,696
Default

Fly off please... That would be great to do a side by side comparison. It seems to me Richard VanGrunsven was looking at the Commanche for a bench mark. I recall reading somewhere long ago when he was deciding on making a 4 place he had to decide if there was value, when competing against used 4 place high performance singles. You can buy a nice used Comanche for less than an RV-10, which is what Van was concerned about. However it is more than just numbers. Of course the RV-10 is doing all this with gear down and welded... Retract gear is more maintenance (which I think was discussed in above) Bottom line both planes are awsome)

Piper Comanche vs Van's RV-10*
Piper PA-24-C 260 Comanche - Performance Data
Horsepower: 260 Gross Weight: 3200 lbs
Top Speed: 170 kts Empty Weight: 1773 lbs
Cruise Speed: 161 kts Fuel Capacity: 60 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 53 kts Range: 628 nm

Van's Aircraft RV10 - Performance Data
Horsepower: 260 Gross Weight: 2700 lbs
Top Speed: 179 kts Empty Weight: 1600 lbs
Cruise Speed: 171 kts Fuel Capacity: 60 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 55 kts Range: 717 nm

*If I got the numbers wrong let me know

I would say the Comanche does pretty well compared to the RV-10.
__________________
George
Raleigh, NC Area
RV-4, RV-7, ATP, CFII, MEI, 737/757/767
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-07-2018, 08:33 AM
RV8Squaz's Avatar
RV8Squaz RV8Squaz is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Senoia, Georgia
Posts: 616
Default A different direction

I initially was interested in the Comanche as well for a second airplane. My RV-8 will always be my baby, but I needed a family model too. Ideally I would have a partnership for the second airplane. I went through a couple of potential partners and various airplanes before being blessed with my current airplane and partners. I looked at everything from Mooneys, Comanches, V-tail Bonanzas, C-210, Turbo Lance, Twin Comanches, C-310, Barons, and of course the RV-10. The C-310 and Baron were quickly dismissed for fuel burn and maintenance costs.

My partners and I ended up with a 1974 F-33A with an STC upgraded 300 hp Cont IO-550. I know this site is for promoting, educating, and enjoying Vans airplanes, but this thing is a Cadillac! We paid $95K and have put $30K into it in the first year. We bought it knowing it would need new cylinders. However, there's 4 of us, so it doesn't hurt so bad. Things have settled down with some of the needed maintenance. We love this plane. My family and I are really enjoying it.

1100+ lbs useful load
170-175 kts at 16-17 gph. This should come down 1.0 - 1.5 gph with our planned installation of GAMI injectors.
74 gallons useable, 80 total. About a 700 nm range.
430W, 327 transponder, Century autopilot, decent paint, midnight blue leather interior, enormous baggage area, and provisions for a small 5th and 6th seat. The airplane is voluminous inside. The rear seats recline to almost lie flat and my wife will go sleep there on long legs.

I realize this is not an apples to apples comparison with the -10, the operating costs being the biggest factor, but just throwing out another comparison.

__________________
Jerry Esquenazi
RV-8 N84JE
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-07-2018, 09:10 AM
vfrazier's Avatar
vfrazier vfrazier is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mount Vernon, IN
Posts: 1,105
Default

I just sold a Debonair. Great airplane. Sold it to go back to 2 place.

Never could see how putting the money into an RV-10 was cost effective from a purely $$$ point of view. BUT... we all want what we want, and if you want an RV-10... good for you! They are great planes too.

One thing that makes the old birds more attractive now is that Hartzell makes their BA props for many (almost all?) of these aircraft. The other Deb at our airport has one and it is FAST.

Also, with the STC'd autopilot and mini-Dynon type EFISs available now, you can really upgrade the old planes for not much money.
__________________
Vince Frazier
www.f1aircraft.com
F1 Rocket and F4 Raider components
www.flyboyaccessories.com
RV and Rocket Accessories, Tailwheels, Tools, & More
1-888-8FLYBOY (1-888-835-9269)

F4 Raider - under construction
F1-H Rocket "Crazy Horse" - sold
RV-4 "Chief Pontiac" - sold
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:16 PM
gmcjetpilot's Avatar
gmcjetpilot gmcjetpilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,696
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8Squaz View Post
We love this plane. My family and I are really enjoying it. I realize this is not
an apples to apples comparison with the -10, the operating costs being the
biggest factor, but just throwing out another comparison.
Wow you are so young in the picture...
Nice plane and a 4 way partnership makes a lot of sense.
__________________
George
Raleigh, NC Area
RV-4, RV-7, ATP, CFII, MEI, 737/757/767
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:24 PM
RV8Squaz's Avatar
RV8Squaz RV8Squaz is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Senoia, Georgia
Posts: 616
Default

Ha! Thatís funny. Thatís actually my boy. I was born long ago! Yeah the 4 way partnership is working out great. Itís everyoneís second airplane in our group. So that makes it easy scheduling wise.
__________________
Jerry Esquenazi
RV-8 N84JE
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-09-2018, 06:45 AM
rsr3 rsr3 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Default

The Commanche’s styling is looking dated now - but still a very pretty aircraft. I found it quite heavy in terms of handling. As much as I like the load carrying capabilities of the 10, I can’t help thinking if only it had a tailwheel variant. For me, the Bonanza wins on looks, but it needs a stick instead of a steering wheel. And nobody need know it has a nosewheel when the gear’s up!

In reality I would happily settle for any of them for a family run around!

Last edited by rsr3 : 11-09-2018 at 06:46 AM. Reason: Meant Bonanza, not Baron.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-09-2018, 01:51 PM
Ivan Kristensen's Avatar
Ivan Kristensen Ivan Kristensen is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Guelph Ontario
Posts: 218
Default PA-24 vs RV-10

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot View Post

Piper Comanche vs Van's RV-10*
Piper PA-24-C 260 Comanche - Performance Data
Horsepower: 260 Gross Weight: 3200 lbs
Top Speed: 170 kts Empty Weight: 1773 lbs
Cruise Speed: 161 kts Fuel Capacity: 60 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 53 kts Range: 628 nm

Van's Aircraft RV10 - Performance Data
Horsepower: 260 Gross Weight: 2700 lbs
Top Speed: 179 kts Empty Weight: 1600 lbs
Cruise Speed: 171 kts Fuel Capacity: 60 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 55 kts Range: 717 nm

*If I got the numbers wrong let me know

I would say the Comanche does pretty well compared to the RV-10.
So here are the numbers from the two airplanes I have personal experience with:
1968 Comanche 260-B C-FTOP
Horsepower: 260
GTOW: 3100 lbs
Empty Weight: 1915 lbs.
Useful load 1185lbs
Cruise Speed:165 kts. @ 14GPH (In those day we hadn't learned to run LOP)
Fuel Capacity: 90 gal
Range:1060 nm (No wind, zero reserve)

2010 Vans RV-10 C-GMDV
Horsepower: 260
GTOW: 2700 lbs
Empty Weight: 1682 lbs.
Useful load 1018lbs
Cruise Speed:168 kts. @ 11.2GPH (LOP)
Fuel Capacity: 60 gal
Range:900 nm (No wind, zero reserve)

I am basing the above numbers on a cruising altitude of 10000ft. Cost, Range and useful load is where the Comanche wins out, but in every other category and overall the RV-10 is clearly the winner IMO.
__________________
Ivan Kristensen
Guelph, ON. Canada
RV-10 (C-GMDV) 1150hrs.
Dual GRT 8.4" EFIS, TT A/P, Avidyne IFD440, Dual EI's


Link to my build site:
https://ivankristensen.smugmug.com/B...ENTAL-aircraft
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-09-2018, 06:53 PM
MConner MConner is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Snead Island, Florida
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan Kristensen View Post
So here are the numbers from the two airplanes I have personal experience with:
1968 Comanche 260-B C-FTOP
Horsepower: 260
GTOW: 3100 lbs
Empty Weight: 1915 lbs.
Useful load 1185lbs
Cruise Speed:165 kts. @ 14GPH (In those day we hadn't learned to run LOP)
Fuel Capacity: 90 gal
Range:1060 nm (No wind, zero reserve)

2010 Vans RV-10 C-GMDV
Horsepower: 260
GTOW: 2700 lbs
Empty Weight: 1682 lbs.
Useful load 1018lbs
Cruise Speed:168 kts. @ 11.2GPH (LOP)
Fuel Capacity: 60 gal
Range:900 nm (No wind, zero reserve)

I am basing the above numbers on a cruising altitude of 10000ft. Cost, Range and useful load is where the Comanche wins out, but in every other category and overall the RV-10 is clearly the winner IMO.
And a a 50 year old airframe with retracts and an FAA strait jacket on changes to avionics and airframes? Not even apples and oranges.
__________________
Mark
RV-10
Bought not built
48X
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-09-2018, 07:13 PM
Kyle Boatright Kyle Boatright is online now
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MConner View Post
And a a 50 year old airframe with retracts and an FAA strait jacket on changes to avionics and airframes? Not even apples and oranges.
There are lots of differences, but to each his own. The Comanche provides a really good value in transportation. A lot of very rational people would choose the Comanche or an equivalent Bo over the RV-10, given the $100k cost difference. We buy/build RV's (and own Comanches) because we're passionate, not because any of it makes sense or can be reasonably justified.
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Atlanta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10

Last edited by Kyle Boatright : 11-10-2018 at 07:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:15 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.