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 09-28-2018, 12:02 PM
Bill Boyd's Avatar
Bill Boyd Bill Boyd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Landing field "12VA"
Posts: 1,180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright View Post
Start building. QB is the way to go if you have more money than time.

Even with a QB, you're probably 2-3 years from needing an engine. In that timeframe, let someone else (or several someone elses) be the early adopters for the Aeromomentum engines and make your engine decision with their experiences in mind.
Everyone's circumstances are different, but for the typical builder, Kyle is correct.

I did a -6A 20-25 years ago, the kind where they shipped you plans and a box of aluminum ore. I bought my 10 kit finished to the QB stage by another USA repeat RV-10 builder who thankfully (I guess) put generous AKZO on all the interior and fay surfaces. Even with a large, well-equipped shop and the occasional kitchen pass from Saucy Wench, I am 2.5+ years into my work on it and still gluing in windows, not yet on gear, no engine or panel on site yet. It's a huge time commitment, and QB / equivalent is the way to go unless you're young and/or poor.

ETA: Post #1111. This place is awesome. Thanks again, Doug!
__________________
Bill Boyd

Hop-Along Aerodrome (12VA)
RV-6A - N30YD - flying since '98
RV-10 - N130YD reserved - under construction

donating monthly to the VAF - thanks, Doug

Last edited by Bill Boyd : 09-28-2018 at 12:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-28-2018, 12:49 PM
ledude ledude is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Seattle
Posts: 5
Default

Thanks for the warm welcome Mike and many thanks for the info everyone. I'm glad that I found this forum. Y'all sounded very passionate with this Vans RV product and that's a good thing.

That's good to hear about the wash primer. Since I'm not a builder by trade and I really couldn't tell whether the inner parts were primed or left bare just by looking. I'm very thankful for the info. This will definitely help me solidify my decision on QB or legacy. I'm not a purist. I just want the darn thing to be done with so that I can spend more time flying rather than dinking around with the build. I just don't have the patience like Jason or some of you to go through the parts one by one, riveting thousands of rivets for the plane parts day by day. That'll absolutely drive me bonkers. I do enjoy the learning part though but once I have done the rivets number 200, I'm ready to move on. :-) Hopefully with the QB, it'll help speed things up a bit.

As for the engine, yes I hear ya. That's one of the reason why I'm asking the question with the other engine. Although, as much as I should, I'm actually not too worry about the plane going down due to the engine failure because well, when it's my time, its my time. I can use the Lycoming engine and the possibility of failure is still going to be there. Even though may be a small chance or I should say smaller? :-)

My only concern with other engines are more on the difficulty in installing the engine that's not built specifically for the RV-10 plane. Or perhaps the quality of the engine. Again, this opinion is from know nothing someone who's not a builder. However, I really like the idea of using Mogas instead of Avgas (My apology if I insulted someone. I'm really not trying to start a religious war as a noob in this forum :-) ). It will help justify more of my flying time from the cost perspective. :-) Kind of strange thing to be concerned about consider it's already going to cost me a fortune to build it but it is what it is. :-) I like the aeromomentum engine also because it's a turbo engine with the ability to go beyond 260 hp if I wanted to while keeping the same weight of the engine and it doesn't hurt that it's a turbo engine as well. With lower gas consumption and lighter engine, that'll translate more to longer distance for me. The less hops I have to take to fly to SoCal to visit my parents the better the plane for me. :-)

As for the prop, I was thinking of using the airmaster but when I did the research, I found out that Hartzell also have the composite propeller which IMHO is much lighter. Not sure whether it matters. Also I like Hartzell constant speed hydraulic system more than the airmaster electronic constant speed control. Any food for thought on the hydraulic vs electronic?

Yeah if all the QB parts are all primed, then I'll just go with the QB. I don't have a lot of money but at the same time my time is very limited with business travel and family. So, whatever helps with the speed of the build, will be the route I'll take. From practicality perspective, it'll cost me something, one way or the other.

I think when I'm ready to execute it, I'll go visit the factory for a tour and see it myself on the QB parts before I make the decision. My other concern is space. I don't have a hangar yet and hangar cost a fortune in Seattle area and most of them is quite a drive from where I live. Well, actually it's not that far away from distance perspective but to some of you who've been to Seattle, you know how lovely our traffic is. So I'm guessing, if I went with the QB, I'm gonna need a hangar ready to go right? My extra single car garage may not going to cut it. I'm speculating that there really is not much of a lot of building other than perhaps the empennage? At least that's how it looks like from the QB picture on Vans' website.



Comment?

Many thanks again everyone for the warm welcome and the help. :-)

Last edited by ledude : 09-28-2018 at 01:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-28-2018, 12:56 PM
Paddy's Avatar
Paddy Paddy is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 229
Default Slow Build

I'll offer a different perspective. Although it took 8 years to finish my build , I was done with the airframe (less fiberglass) in 2 years. The slow build fuse, fully primed with Akzo, was done in not much more than the wait time for the quick build kit at the time. I really enjoyed that part of the build. The wings followed and while repetitive, they weren't too bad. I should mention that I had a Cherokee all this time, so I wasn't grounded while building. Once the airframe was done, I had to schlep it across the country for a job move, spent the next 4 yrs in a travelling job, had two kids, moved to an airpark and finally got down to finishing the thing. If I were to do it all again (and I might, don't tell the wife ), I'd go slow build again without hesitation. Wiring the panel took longer than building the fuselage, so if you're really looking to save time, the cost of a quick build kit, plus a plug 'n play panel is gonna add a good $50k to your build at least. That $50k was just enough to get me a hangar attached to the house! Just sayin...
__________________
RV-10
Flying as of 10/30/16 after 8 yrs building
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-28-2018, 01:37 PM
ledude ledude is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Seattle
Posts: 5
Talking

Or perhaps do it the way you did it, Paddy. Buy other plane (used one. Been eyeing that Cherokee 6-300 for a while), ride it for 10 years or until whenever the RV-10 is done. Take the time with legacy and perhaps like what Kyle suggested, since it'll take that long to build the darn plane, the aeromomentum engine could be ready by then and I don't have to be the quinea pig. Or better, other new engine may have popped up by then. The priming part (even though, Vans already do the wash primer) still bothers me a bit. I'd like the normal Akzo slathered all over the inside of the frame than just the wash prime.

Not a bad idea. I can always sell the Cherokee and assume the lost (or gain) as money I'll have to pay no matter what if I had to fly the RV-10. and by taking the time to build it, I don't really have to buy all the RV-10 parts right away while I'm building it. Plus I can always use that extra 50k to load all the plane with all my dream toys. :-) Although that may not fit what Bill said. Young and poor? Depend what's the definition of young and poor nowadays right? I could go both ways with the young and poor. LOL...


Thanks for the advise everyone.

Last edited by ledude : 09-28-2018 at 01:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-28-2018, 02:14 PM
DRMA DRMA is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 272
Default

I'll add my experience to the list above. I went with the QB wings and fuselage for my RV-10, and am very glad that I did. The 10 is a very large and time consuming project, even with the QB. As for rivets, even with the QB you will be setting thousands of rivets by the time you are done. And I'm satisfied with the primer that Van's recommends and uses on the QB interior parts, and used the same primer for my empennage and other parts.

I believe the $50,000 estimate for QB and panel is way too high. The QB wings are $6200 extra and the QB fuse is $7475, so total extra for QB is $13,675. As for the plug & play panel, the cost will depend on what avionics you select. If IFR well equipped such a panel can cost $36,000, most of that is for the avionics, not for the panel shop work. So you might spend $3 - 5k for a panel shop doing the cutting and wiring, you won't save $36,000!

I personally would not consider installing an automotive engine in my aircraft. These engines are not designed to produce 70% power for hours at a time. They are designed for brief bursts of power for a few seconds of acceleration, followed by perhaps 15-20% while cruising down the interstate. They don't have dual ignitions and you have the additional complexity of water cooling and the need to install a PSRU "transmission" which is a frequent failure point. And if the engine is lighter, you will either need to move it farther forward from the firewall to maintain the designed CG point, or do some major redesign of the fuselage to get the plane into the design CG. For me, this extra work and risk isn't worth it. I also expect that an RV-10 with a non-Lycoming engine will be harder to re-sell and will have a lower resale value.

But at the end of the day, this is an experimental aircraft and so we each have the right build what we think is best. So have fun with your build, no matter what route you decide.

Cheers,
__________________
Dave Macdonald

RV-10 Finishing Kit & FWF in-progress
2018 VAF Dues Paid
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-28-2018, 02:36 PM
Paddy's Avatar
Paddy Paddy is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 229
Default Avionics Shop

Where can you get an IFR panel done for $5k over the cost of the hardware? I'd love to have found that place when I was building!
__________________
RV-10
Flying as of 10/30/16 after 8 yrs building
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-28-2018, 04:56 PM
Kyle Boatright Kyle Boatright is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,414
Default

A single car garage is sufficient to build any major component on an RV-10. Depending on the maximum dimension, you may or may not able to complete the engine/cowl/prop in that space.

For most folks, moving the project to the airport really slows progress compared to working at home. It generally increases discomfort and places you farther from a restroom, food, and all of those other conveniences of home. You won't need hangar space for years, other than to possibly store finished components.

If you have a driveway, you can temporarily fit the wings and tail there, then disassemble it the same day.

As far as mogas is concerned, there are plenty of people successfully burning it in lycomings. Realistically, Mogas isn't widely available at airports, so if you're building the airplane to travel, you're going to burn a lot of avgas anyway.

One more thought. You mentioned the risk of an alternative engine vs a Lycoming. I don't think many of us would choose to fly ourselves or ourselves plus passengers behind an engine we don't have faith in. That's where many alternative engine users meet their Waterloo. Sure, the engine runs, but it doesn't cool well, or the redrive is making metal, or there is an intermittent miss that is hard to track down. So the alternative engine guys often (not always) end up doing a tremendous amount of development work on their installation before they are truly comfortable with the airplane. Plenty of times they either walk away and sell the project, or convert it to a purpose built aircraft engine. You take a big financial hit when you do that. Something I haven't seen mentioned with regard to Aeromomentum is how they have addressed harmonic vibration, thrust bearings, and all of those things you have to address when you take an engine and convert it to aero use. Those are tricky issues to resolve
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Atlanta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10

Last edited by Kyle Boatright : 09-28-2018 at 06:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-28-2018, 06:15 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 5,401
Default

Reading your comments (ď...after 200 rivets youíre ready to move on...Ē) makes me wonder if youíd be happier buying someone elseís RV. Personally I thought building was a great, enjoyable experience, but not everyone feels that way. And if you donít, it will turn into work. My suggestion: invest in the tail kit and basic tools. If you donít like it, well, you havenít lost a huge amount.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-28-2018, 07:12 PM
rongawer's Avatar
rongawer rongawer is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brentwood, CA
Posts: 348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRMA View Post
I personally would not consider installing an automotive engine in my aircraft. These engines are not designed to produce 70% power for hours at a time. They are designed for brief bursts of power for a few seconds of acceleration, followed by perhaps 15-20% while cruising down the interstate. They don't have dual ignitions and you have the additional complexity of water cooling and the need to install a PSRU "transmission" which is a frequent failure point. And if the engine is lighter, you will either need to move it farther forward from the firewall to maintain the designed CG point, or do some major redesign of the fuselage to get the plane into the design CG. For me, this extra work and risk isn't worth it. I also expect that an RV-10 with a non-Lycoming engine will be harder to re-sell and will have a lower resale value.

But at the end of the day, this is an experimental aircraft and so we each have the right build what we think is best. So have fun with your build, no matter what route you decide.

Cheers,
I agree with most of your post, however to say automotive engines are not designed to operate at 70% power for hours at a time is not factual and contrary to the actual testing paradigm employed by most automotive engine manufacturers. If you donít like the idea of using an automotive, thatís fine by me - everyone is entitled to their opinion. But they do work well in the role of aviation with many of them in active service on many aircraft, even ones here on VAF.
__________________
Ron Gawer

- RV10, N1530G (reserved). Empennage in progress.
- RV12, N975G, Flying
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-28-2018, 07:19 PM
woxofswa woxofswa is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Mesa Arizona
Posts: 516
Default

My Dos centavos. The fuselage is fun to build. Lots of gratification and seeing results as you build. Legacy build let’s you plan wiring and do other things like A/C hoses and/ or sound insulation. (I did both).

Wing is relatively boring and repetitive and a pain to store until final assembly. You can do the fuselage after the empennage by ordering the spar box kit with the fuselage kit and save the wings for last. I went QB on the wings.

When I started building, there were two “hot” engines with impressive (in theory) numbers at attractive prices. (One Subaru, one Corvette). At first I was attracted to the glossy brochures, but the old salt brain trust talked me into staying legacy Lycosaur, and boy, in hindsight, am I glad that I did. Neither company is still around in its original form leaving a bunch of frustrated orphans.
I am glad that next level experimenters are out there. They are a vital part of our culture and maybe someday a “real deal” might emerge, but personally, I wouldn’t buy into anything with a two digit serial number or less. Caveat emptor.
__________________
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
N24EV
RV-10 BPE, Dynon, Airflow systems A/C
First flight May 10, 2014

Last edited by woxofswa : 09-28-2018 at 07:22 PM.
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 11:43 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.