What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-10 vs. 182

B

BrianNC

Well Known Member
I'm new here and would really like to see this discussed. Kinda getting turned on to the RV10. I'm sure someone can expound on this for me. :)

Seems the payload is about the same, but the RV10 is faster. Say a 182 without a headwind. Or is the RV10 superior in other ways? Room, etc? I'm looking for the payload with speed too, and the 182 doesn't match up to the RV10 on speed, but it seems the RV10 has as good a payload or better. I have probably 50-60 hours in a 182 so I am familiar with it. Mostly training though and a few cross countries, but for training, not travel.

Thanks for the replies. Love the site!
 
Guessing is not good

But I would bet the RV10 is more fuel efficient..I.e faster AND burning less fuel to do it.

But as i say thats just a guess...But based on the 172's I leave standing still in the 7a while burning less gas I would say its probably accurate


Frank 7a
 
Welcome to VAF!!!!

BrianNC said:
I'm new here
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forums, Brian.

The RV 10 will do an honest 195--200 mph on somewhere around 12 gph, with a full load.

You can do the service work, and annuals yourself, if you built the plane.

Take off, and climb performance is night and day.

You should try to get a ride in a 10, it will answer all of your questions, and leave you wanting one of your own.:D

Good to have you aboard.
 
I have about 200 hours in a 182. It is a fantastic plane! If I could only have one production plane, that would be it. It does a lot of things very well, even if others outperform it at the extreme edges of the performance spectrum.

If you have any interest in operating on soft or unimproved strips, the 182 is a better plane than the -10, or any RV for that matter. It's a pretty darn good backcountry plane, especially with the STOL leading edge conversion. Probably everything else favors the -10, though.
 
jtrusso said:
Brian,

This has been discussed at length in this thread:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=4283&highlight=C182+comparison

Scott Schmidt, RV10 builder/owner/pilot/poster extraordinaire has put together some really good charts comparing the RV10 to the C182 and the both the Cirrus SR20 and SR22. See the 4th page of the thread for his post.

Enjoy the journey!
Click to expand...
Thanks John. I did a search but couldn't find anything.

And I have been addicted to Scott's travelogues the last few days. :D
 
Mike S said:
You can do the service work, and annuals yourself, if you built the plane.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware of that. That would save some money. Do you have to have someone else annual the engine? Never owned a plane so don't know about annual procedures.
 
BrianNC said:
I wasn't aware of that. That would save some money. Do you have to have someone else annual the engine? Never owned a plane so don't know about annual procedures.
Click to expand...

When you have the DAR inspect the plane for the "Pink Slip", you can apply for a special repairmans cert, good only for the plane you built, and good only for you.

Otherwise, any A/P can do the annual -----which technically isnt an "annual", but that is what most folks call it:rolleyes:
 
One more thing--------

Sounds like you need to join the EAA, and find a local chapter.

They will answer a lot of your questions about experimental aircraft in general.

Good org, they are working for us.
 
Last edited:
Welcome!

If you want to spend all your time flying and don't want to do maintenance work yourself, get a 182. It's a great traveling / IFR airplane, lots of payload, decent hot/high performance, most every A&P will be familiar with it.

If you want to build and airplane and then have a great IFR / traveling plane to fly, build a RV-10.

If you want to fly now, but perform your own maintenance, tinker with the plane, etc but don't want to build, buy an already flying RV-10.

Both of these are good planes and the comparisons have already been pointed out. However, you might want to think about life with the plane and the building process.

TODR


TODR
 
recession bargains

I asked myself the same question and am now building a -10. But, if one is making the decision today, you have to consider that the market for 182's has gone soft in recent months, prices have fallen by 30-40%, and there are some very, very good bargains out there. The 182 will never outperform the RV-10 in the sky, but it will probably leave more money in the checkbook. It boils down to whether you want to build or fly.
 
Not taking into consideration initial 'purchase' price, wouldn't a -10 be less expensive to maintain since one can do all the maintenance, annuals, etc on it themselves?
 
Brian,

There are 2 1/2 RV-10's in the Charlotte area. It should be easy enough to get you a ride.

BTW, you will want to join the Charlotte EAA chapter, www.eaa309.org. (As the former president of the chapter, I can't encourage you strong enough.)

The -10 is a great plane, lots of room, good payload, and fast! A lot faster than even a 182 RG.

Check your PM's.
 
Andy has a great point. I, too, am building a -10, and I'm really enjoying the experience. However, I'm not sure I'd make the same decision again. With the prices on used aircraft having dropped substantially and kits/engine/etc not dropping at all, the build becomes much less cost effective.

-Rob
 
Don't forget the panel

And you can put the latest and greatest glass panel stuff in the 10 that you can't even buy for the 182.
 
It's all about the mission. Everyone that considers an airplane should consider what they want it to do. Once you've decided what you expect the airplane to do, we could give you a little more perspective on what airplane(s) would be good for you.
 
Hi Brian

Hi Brian, I love the 182 but it is a different plane then the RV-10. I flew this 182 from time to time while I was building the RV-10.
In the second picture you can see I have the RPM at 2310 and 20 inches, the TAS is 135 knots at 10,500ft and three people. The RV-10 would be at 165-168 knots TAS with the same settings. As for room, the RV-10 has more room in the back.
The RV-10 climbs faster and has much better visibility.

I have two freinds that purchased brand new 182T and a 206T. They love their planes, don't ever plan on doing any maintenance themselves, and didn't have to build it. If you enjoy that type of work then you will love the RV-10.

Like others have mentioned, you should fly in both and see what you think.
I love getting in the RV-10 to fly somewhere for the weekend. It is roomy, fast, and fun to fly. I'm grinning right now just waiting for our next trip!

67933085_D4v88-L.jpg


67934508_kqY7c-L.jpg
 
182 is a solid airplane, but..............

I think the RV10 wins easily.

I've got just over 50 hours in various flavors of 182 & turbo 182. Not a lot, but enough to know how it flies. They are nice airplanes for sure, but not efficient and the load carrying ability is often over stated.

They may fly with the thing packed to the ceiling, but not legally. Also not well. I inadvertently overloaded a turbo 182 by about 200 pounds. Takeoff was very sluggish. I double checked W&B when I landed - ops.

By comparison my last Mooney, a 1981 M20J, could carry more payload, farther and faster than a comparably equipped 182 or turbo 182. I worked through the numbers on that many times because I had a hard time believing it myself.

On very short trips the 182 may tie or possibly even wins (not on speed), but it doesn't live up to the myth. The myth goes like this: The 182 can carry a big load, but aren't that fast. Likewise that Mooney's are fast, but can't carry a load. Pilots keep repeating this until it becomes accepted as fact.

Don't listen to the mantra, check the POH on both airplanes and do the math for your loads and trip distances. You will be surprised.

Back to the RV10 which I've only got 1.2 hours in. Hardly anything, but enough to know it will blow away any 182. Actually Van's numbers speak for themselves.

Also, it was not at all hard to fly. Nothing about it was more difficult than a 182. I think it was easier to fly it more precisely.

As several have recommended, fly an RV10. I think that will make the decision an easy one.
 
BrianNC said:
Not taking into consideration initial 'purchase' price, wouldn't a -10 be less expensive to maintain since one can do all the maintenance, annuals, etc on it themselves?
Click to expand...

Not just labor but parts too. Parts for certified aircraft are MUCH higher than the equivalent "generic" aircraft-grade parts, which you are free to use on a homebuilt. By that I mean highway robbery-grade higher.
 
A couple of notes on the 182 as well:

It isn't just one airplane - it's a series that has been in production for a long time. You have several different engines, different MGTWs, some are RGs, some are turbos, large wing tanks vs small ones ... you get the idea. There are also many, many examples on the market, from showroom-new to needs-TLC clunkers.

Older 182s will be much cheaper to buy, more expensive to maintain, carry slightly less and have more problems. You can probably find a mid 80s vintage model for around $100k, but expect to have lots more small repairs.

On the newer 182, the 182T (not the turbo, just the "T" model) is probably the most desirable due to the aerodynamic cleanup and some mainteance-related improvements. There is a crankshaft AD that affected many 182S and T models. G1000 equipped 182T models loose a lot of payload. The idea newer model is probably a 2001 182T with about 800 hours - enough to get flown regularly, not close to TBO.

The new turbos are simple to operate (nice automatic wategate control) but guzzle gas at full power. Still, it makes operating in the "teens" and low twenties easy. Van has commented rather strongly against the use of turbocharging on the -10 due to flutter, so this is probably better if you want to fly high.

I don't have the 182S/T POH in front of me, but I did a lot of research on them recently and IIRC, cruise is about 135kt on 12 gph. 88 gal usable fuel, about 1000 lb useful load. No real problems with CG and plenty of baggage capacity. However, load 'em full of fuel (7+ hours!) and the payload goes down considerably.

TODR
 
I'm sure if you went with the 182 you would be happy, to a point. There is the cost of keeping the airplane certified. Now if you can't do the building, I'm sure there will be a 10 on the market somewhere. What is nice about an experimental is if you want to change something, you can do it. Now if you bought it second hand, you will have to find an AP to do your inspection each year, if you want to do some of it that's fine, but he must sign it off. Much different from a certified plane, an AI must sign it off. Cost can get pretty high. I like the experimental airplane because I have freedom, freedom from the FAA that you don't have with the certified airplane. Look at your mission and go from there. OH! and you will have to look at your bank account also. If you choose to build the 10, what you put in it is all up to you. I'm sure like the rest of the RV's out there, the cost is up to you.
 
182&RV

I have the best of both worlds-
1/2 share in a old 182 and 1/2 of a new 6A
The 182 burns auto gas, has toured the back country of Baja and Idaho. It has crossed the Sea of Cortes for fish tacos and to pet whales. And down to Puerto Varta to zipp the jungle. BUT!! the 6A does not compare at all. Vans two seaters are the most fun of any aircraft... It will also get me to Alaska faster and cheaper that the 182. But I would never touch the back country in a nose drager. Hay, What about a tail-drager 10!:eek:
 
Crossbow has a 2006 Cessna 182T Turbo and I have been pretty impressed with how fast it really is. When they fly it up to Oregon up high it gets pretty close to RV-10 speeds.

Here is one of its last trips at only 10,000FT, 157 kts
07:11PM 34.97 -119.03 157 9900 Los Angeles Center
07:11PM 34.99 -119.07 158 9900 Los Angeles Center
07:12PM 35.00 -119.07 157 9900 Los Angeles Center

This is one of the reasons that I would like to see a RV-10T

Rob Hickman
N402RH RV-10
 
N401RH said:
Crossbow has a 2006 Cessna 182T Turbo and I have been pretty impressed with how fast it really is. When they fly it up to Oregon up high it gets pretty close to RV-10 speeds.

Here is one of its last trips at only 10,000FT, 157 kts
07:11PM 34.97 -119.03 157 9900 Los Angeles Center
07:11PM 34.99 -119.07 158 9900 Los Angeles Center
07:12PM 35.00 -119.07 157 9900 Los Angeles Center

This is one of the reasons that I would like to see a RV-10T

Rob Hickman
N402RH RV-10
Click to expand...

You will rip the wings off with a turbo.

RV-10 is much more fun to fly!
 
TSwezey said:
You will rip the wings off with a turbo.
Click to expand...

Todd,
You're probably kidding about ripping the wings off with a turbo, but if you look at the article that Van published you'll see that the projected IAS for a turbo -10 never reaches 200kts.

As a result, the air loads (a function of IAS) imparted on the aircraft do not exceed the current Vne design loads. Instead, as many have pointed out, the failure mode to be concerned about is flutter which is a function of TAS.

To my knowledge, no one has really done a rigorous flutter analysis on the -10. So we really don't know where the limit is, except that it should be greater than Vd (1.1 Vne) or ~220kts. Interestingly, the highest speed that Van projects for the turbo -10 is about 210kts (75% at 24K).

IMHO, if anything is going to rip off, a more likely candidate is the nose gear if one lets the FF weight get too high.

-DC
 
182 vs rv-10

like aztailwind i have the best of both worlds a 182P and a rv-6a
the 182 is a great airplane mine has 84 gal long range tanks and 30 gal o&n aux tank in baggage compartment as far as a good flying airplane its hard to beat a 182 and its a very safe airplane its hard to beat the ins cost for 182
i think its called the safest plane in the sky for its safty record
but whats so great is having the rv-6 for when flying alone or with 1 other person its hard to beat the speed and 20 to 30 miles per gal so i would by a rv-6 or 7 and rent or find some one with a 182 and trade some time
for what its worth the ins for 6 is more than 2x 182
bob
 
digidocs said:
To my knowledge, no one has really done a rigorous flutter analysis on the -10.
Click to expand...
Ken Krueger wrote the article referenced. Ken's a pretty good engineer. I would suspect he did a pretty good analysis before publishing the article. Not sure if it would be called truly "rigorous", but I think the idea is pretty sound - the -10 doesn't seem to be set up for turbo engines.

TODR
 
Could someone explain in a little detail how annuals, inspections, etc, work with a homebuilt such as the -10? Can all of this be done by the builder including engine? Do you just keep it inspected as you go along, or 100 hour intervals, etc? Is there an extablished process of inspection? I would just like to know how that hole process works. Not even sure if I am asking the right questions.
 
BrianNC said:
Could someone explain in a little detail how annuals, inspections, etc, work with a homebuilt such as the -10? Can all of this be done by the builder including engine?
Click to expand...

Yes, if you are the holder of the repairman certificate for that aircraft.

If you don't have the repaiman certificate, you can still do all the required tasks, but you will need to find a willing A&P to sign off on the inspection. All you need is an A&P, not an IA, which is different than certified AC.

BrianNC said:
Do you just keep it inspected as you go along, or 100 hour intervals, etc?
Click to expand...

The requirement is for an annual process, but just like any thing else in life, it's easier to cope with if you address maintenance issues on an ongoing basis so that there aren't any surprizes on an annual conditional inspection.

BrianNC said:
Is there an extablished process of inspection?
Click to expand...

There are guidelines available that recommend what needs to be reviewed. However, as the manufacturer of an experimental it is up to you to document the process based upon the requirements on how you've built your aircraft. While the overall process may be similiar from one experimental aircraft to another, there may be differences based upon the installed equipment and/or customizations that you've implemented.

There are many flying RV-10s with owners more than willing to share what they've done already so that you can use their documentation as a template. If you haven't found Tim Olson's site yet, you need to check it out. (http://myrv10.com) Once you get your RV-10 builder number, you'll also want to register on Tim's site as a builder.
 
rleffler said:
Yes, if you are the holder of the repairman certificate for that aircraft.
Click to expand...

So I am assuming that if you are the one that builds the plane, you have the right to hold the certificate, correct?

The other thing, basically all you are doing is installing the engine. How does that qualify you for inspecting an engine? Do you normally have an A&P do that for you?
 
BrianNC said:
So I am assuming that if you are the one that builds the plane, you have the right to hold the certificate, correct?
Click to expand...

Correct...... There is a process that you'll need to follow with FSDO to get the repairman's certificate.


BrianNC said:
The other thing, basically all you are doing is installing the engine. How does that qualify you for inspecting an engine? Do you normally have an A&P do that for you?
Click to expand...

What qualifies you for building an experimental? The answer is nothing, since the primary purpose of experimentals is for aviation education.

Inspecting the engine is pretty simple. I even did that myself on my Cherokee during my owner assisted annuals. Changing the oil, plugs, and doing compression testing isn't a big deal. Obviously, if you see something that doesn't look right, then you need to make a determination if you have the skill to make the repair or need to turn to somebody with more experience.
 
Bob has it right.

There are two paths. Legal and prudent. Legal, you can do anything. Prudent....you're the judge on what you should do.
 
Mel said:
There are two paths. Legal and prudent. Legal, you can do anything. Prudent....you're the judge on what you should do.
Click to expand...

Right.

I guess I might also be confusing with 'inspecting' an engine and actually doing repair on it. It seems that someone that knows engines better than myself should actually be 'fixing' them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top