RV-10 versus Cessna 182

Hi Everyone,

I was wondering if anyone else has made any comparisons or decided between a -10 and a 182. Maybe someone owned a 182 and decided to build a -10? I was curious as to what comparisons or differences there are between the two, besides the obvious ones.

The 182 is touted as being an excellent cross-country cruiser with excellent soft-field handling or back-country capability. I know Vans touts their soft-field history from the farm strip, but does that still apply to the -10? The numbers look good in the specs, but what is the opinion from the field? Are there enough flying -10's to verify the specs yet? Finally, can the -10 haul big enough loads like mountain bikes?

All of the cessnas have such long established histories, track records, and pilot experiences. It is much much more difficult for me to visualize and understand exactly what I would get with the -10.

I have been having a VERY tough time deciding between building or buying, these past few months. I have read all of the Van's information and have been enthusiastically drawn in by everything I have seen and read thus far. I have attended a few meetings of my local EAA chapter. I have read the builder logs. Finally, I have had a test-ride in a -7A but not a -10.

However, i have also been shopping for a Cessna 182. I want a 4-seater with the capability to do that occasional long long x-country and haul a mountain bike even.

Anyway, I hope some of this rant made sense. Is it clear yet how confused I am? At least, I am hoping to hear how others may have made their decisions to undergo a major project and build/buy an airplane without a track record, yet.

Jay

Jay,
I'm sure Vic Syracuse will be responding. He built a 10 and had a 182 before upgrading to a Bonanza. In the current issue of the RVator, Vic and his wife, Carol, mention that the 10 is much better than the Bonanza. I have owned a 182 in the past and now own a RV-6. In fact, I bought Vic's 6 to make room fopr him to build his 10. The 182 did a lot of things fairly well, and would probably be a decent investment if you bought it "right". The 6 is quite a bit smaller, but tons more fun. I do not miss the 182, or any of the other planes I've had, at all.

I've got an O-360 with a Hartzell c/s prop. Vic's 10 has a IO-540 with a 3-blade MT prop. He thinks the 10 is a couple of knots faster--around 165 kts. I've been seeing about 162 kts at 9.5 gph.

My suggestion would be to fly a 182 then step out of it into an RV. You'll see what I mean.

Mark

repairmans cert.

I would think that an obvious consideration between the two would be the ability to do self maintenance and outfit the 10 with any whiz-bang avionics to your hearts delight. Unless you have no interest in that kind of thing...

I would imagine that it wouldn't be any big deal to get a couple of mountain bikes in the back of a 10 (maybe with the rear seats removed). Weight certainly wouldn't be a problem.

Yes and yes

Scott,

Yes, the repairman's cert and avionics upgrades are definite benefits. However, I realize there are some drawbacks, too.

1. If your experimental breaks down away from home, how are you going to get the problem fixed? How likley is it a random A&P will help fix your experimental plane? I have heard some A&P's do not want the liability of working on a non-certified plane?

2. I would love to do my own repairs and upgrades, given i have the time, tools, hangar, etc. Ideally, i would live in a skypark where i could park the plane in the hangar attached to my house! Unfortunatley, at my local airport, the waiting list for hangars from the county is 20+ years long.

Finally, can the actual seat backs in the -10 be removed? IE you would have more or less of a cave from the back of the front seat to the back of the baggage area, all for storage?

thanks again,
Jay

-10 Test Ride

Mark,

I would definitely love to test ride a -10. Are there any -10's available in the bay area?

I know of one other -10 builder, and he got his test ride in Aurora. As soon as I can find others to share that ride, I will have to make that trip to Aurora.

Jay

I am currently doing most of my flying in a Cessna 182. I also occasionaly fly a Cessna 172, and twice in the last couple of years I was really hard up to fly and nothing else was available so I took the Cessna 152 up. After I took the demo flight in a RV-10, I can't really tell the difference between the 182 and the 152. RV-10 and Cessna 182 aren't even in the same performance class. No comparison - RV-10 wins - no contest. I can't build fast enough. I try to work parts every day now, even if only for half an hour or an hour. Please get me out of those darn SPAM CANS!!!!! NOW !!!!!!!!

It seems that you haven't actually seen a -10, at least judging by your responses and questions. I think you owe it to yourself to at least order an info kit from Vans (http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/infovido.htm) and if you are thinking of building, the preview plans (http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/conmanul.htm). With the investment you are considering it would be money well spent.

You also deserve information to make an informed decision. It's not uncommon to fly/drive many miles to inspect an aircraft before purchase. Vans will give you that opportunity as well. http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/tourdemo.htm

It's not really fair to compare a -10 to a 182, not fair to the 182 that is. The new ones are way to expensive and they're too slow to compare to a -10. Probably better to compare it to Bonanza performance I would think. Can't really do a price comparison with anything else.

Be forewarned though, fly as many 182's as you like BEFORE you make the trip to Vans because after that trip you probably wont be interested in them anymore

I'm not building a -10, mine is an -8. After seeing the -10 for the first time this year at Oshkosh my wife asked me why we weren't building a -10! It's an incredible aircraft.

Rat

Dear Jay:

I am a 1400+ hour IFR pilot who has owned three C-182's, a Bellanca Super Viking, a C-177, and an RV-6A. While flying the RV-6A I bought a 1/3 interest in a C-182 so I would have the 4 seater when I needed 3-4 seats.

At Oshkosh 2003 my buddy, Terry Cole, hand delivered my order for an RV-10 kit to Van. Second one given to Van at OSH. Terry gave him #1. After flying the RV-6 for over 250 hours I was convinced before ever seeng the RV-10 except on paper that it was going to be a wonderful plane. Now having flown the RV-10 I know for sure it is 10 times better than anything I have flown before except for doing sport acro in the RV-6A.

You will miss out a lot going with a C-182 over the RV-10. In too many ways to even list.

Best regards,

Russ Daves
N710RV (Reserved - Fuselage on main gear)
N65RV (RV-6A Sold)

There is no doubt that the C-182 is a great plane. There are lots of them around. As others have mentioned, I owned one for 4-5 years, and really enjoyed family vacations. It wil carry just about anything you can load in it (figuratively speaking). However, I will gently say that it is not anwhere near the same class of airplane as the RV-10. The RV-10 is closer to a Bonanza (actually, I think the Bonanza would like to be closer to the RV-10). The speed of the RV-10 is almost 30 knots faster, and the altitude performance is much, much better. We just went to Kansas City for Thanksgiving, and we had 57 knot headwinds directly on the nose, giving us the lowest ground speeds we have ever seen in the 10 (120 knots at times!). We would never had made the trip in the C-182, and we remarked about that as we were flying along.
The room in the 10 is much better than both the C-182 and the Bonanza, especially for the back seat occupants.
The only drawback is that you have to build the 10, but some don't really see that as a drawback, just part of the journey.

Best of Luck to you in your decision.

Vic

My advice is to build an RV-10 only if you know in your heart that *building* an airplane is what you want to do. Otherwise, buy a 182 and start flying.

Dave Cole
RV-7 wings

No Such Thing As Too Many Airplanes

Jay,

Why not two airplanes? Instead of a RV-10/182, we have an RV-7/172 combo. That's not to brag; each type has characteristics the other can't duplicate, and you may be better off owning two less pricey and more economical birds rather than trying to make one fit all. I looked over the -10 with a critical eye to carrying "stuff", and selling the -7 and 172. We're sticking with the two plane mix. What are your missions, really?

No question the RVs are much more delightful to fly, faster, builder maintainable. But you can't load the load that a Cessna carries. You mentioned carrying a mountain bike. Fancy hoisting that onto the wing and down through the door of a 10 - maybe. Easy with the Cessna. We carry two bikes and all the comforts of home for camping in the 172. The RV is for B&Bs and a rental car at the destination. Besides a bulk and access advantage, Cessna's don't have a c.g. envelop, if it fits, fly. I don't know about the 10; I suspect it's a tighter envelop.

Our -7 earns its keep with slave labor rates for maintenance, 26 miles per gallon of mogas (my wife relates to that, not GPH), and MUCH more fun to fly. But if I had to make a Sofie's Choice, the RV would go, the 172 would stay, sickening as that seems.

John Siebold

Or RV and a Club

John... I have access to a flying club with dozens of airplanes available of all kinds. It is hard to justify owning one plane let alone two, with reasonable access to rentals, under current circumstances related to funds and time available.

My hope is in the next few years, i will have more time to fly. however, i thought why not get a jump start on building, even if it is slow going at first. I can easily afford the $2k in tools and the $3k for the empennage kit to start. Got to start some time!

Jay

Remote Maintenance

Thank you for the answers, as it has helped some.

However, what do people plan to do if they have a maintenance problem on a cross-country while away from the home field. I was told some MX's avoid working on non-certified airplanes due to liability. Ideally, the owner/builder could handle all maintenance, but performing work while remote would be less likely.

Jay

What you should REALLY be comparing is the -10 and a Glasair Sportsman 2+2, not a spam can from your grandpa's era. For coolness and speed the -10 wins hands down. For load carrying capacity (Including two mountain bikes and camping gear) the 2+2 can't be beat - along with the ability to swap gear from trike to taildragger in an hour. Cost to build is about equal for the two.

Big - no Huge - difference is going to be builders sites like this one with a huge braintrust of experience. You won't find that with the Glasair unless you pay to join stargate.com and even then there's 1000's fewer builders compared to the RV's. Another thing that ticks me off about Glasair is the nearly $2000 penalty they levy on you for buying the kit in sections rather than the full $35k at once.

Pragmatism

Jay,

That's the best approach yet, given your circumstances - start building! A friend looked over my project whilst abuilding, and decided he was best off continuing to rent what he needed. Keeps your hand in actually flying while you're building, too.

Regarding maintenance away from home, that's a spendid reason for installing garden variety hardware, engine (in particular), and prop, avoiding what's really experimental, not simply a clone. Part sources would be more readily at hand on an airport, or at least quickly obtained via UPS. I find it hard to believe that an A&P would shy away from long green when he's stareing at a Lycoming with legacy accessories, or a Hartzell, even if mounted on an experimental airframe. You could sign off his work if you have the repairman's license for your plane. I wouldn't avoid building and installing what I wanted for fear of being stranded.

"If I had a nickel for each time I worried about something that never came to pass, I'd be a millionaire." Mark Twain

John Siebold

The Numbers please

Cessna 182 J,K,L,M Skylane..........................RV-10
Horsepower: 230.0000....................................Horsepower: 235.0000
Gross Weight: 2800 lbs...................................Gross Weight: 2700 lbs
Top Speed: 148 kts.......................................Top Speed: 175 kts
Empty Weight: 1620 lbs..................................Empty Weight: 1520 lbs
Cruise Speed: 141 kts.....................................Cruise Speed: 165 kts
Fuel Capacity: 65.00 gal..................................Fuel Capacity: 60.00 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 48 kts...............................Stall Speed (dirty): 55 kts
Range: 550 nm..............................................Range: 767 nm
Takeoff / Landing **....................................Takeoff / Landing **
Ground Roll: 625 ft / 590 ft...............................Ground Roll:583ft/ 650 ft
50 ft obstacle:1205 ft / 1350 ft........................Over 50 ft obstacle: ? / ?
Rate Of Climb: 980 fpm....................................Rate Of Climb: 1220 fpm
Ceiling: 18900 ft............................................Ceiling: 16840 ft


For grins a 4-place/low wing/retract with like performance:

Beech H 35 Bonanza...................................RV-10
Horsepower: 240.0000....................................Horsepower: 235.0000
Gross Weight: 2900 lbs...................................Gross Weight: 2700 lbs
Top Speed: 174 kts.......................................Top Speed: 175 kts
Empty Weight: 1820 lbs..................................Empty Weight: 1520 lbs
Cruise Speed: 165 kts.....................................Cruise Speed: 165 kts
Fuel Capacity: 39.00 gal..................................Fuel Capacity: 60.00 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 50 kts...............................Stall Speed (dirty): 55 kts
Range: 470 nm..............................................Range: 767 nm
Takeoff / Landing **....................................Takeoff / Landing **
Ground Roll: 1050 ft / 710 ft.............................Ground Roll:583ft/ 650 ft
50 ft obstacle:1260 ft / 1050 ft........................Over 50 ft obstacle: ? / ?
Rate Of Climb: 1225 fpm...................................Rate Of Climb: 1220 fpm
Ceiling: 19800 ft.............................................Ceiling: 16840 ft


** Van does not specify landing distance over 50', assume landing distances
are ground roll @ max gross, sea level

The C182 has a catalog of aftermarket modifications: STOL, speed mods: nose wheel/strut fairings, main gear wheel pants exhaust stack fairings as well as engine, fuel capacity and other aero modifications.

In utility the 182 and Dash10 compare very well. I have flown a C-182 as a CFI years ago and sat in a RV-10 at Oshkosh, but can't make a direct cabin comparison.

Obviously both great numbers. I will say the Cessna is more utilitarian and rugged based on my knowledge of RV construction in general to factory planes. Please don't shoot the messenger many people know that RV's and other homebuilt aircraft have lighter structure, sufficient for the job but not as resilient to abuse. Also the high wing, door arrangement is easier to get into and out. Again opinion and I am a low wing man, so no high/low wing debate,

I also think in the 4 place land, an older Mooney (180hp/200hp) compares very well with the efficiency/performance of the RV-10. However the Mooney has a smaller cabin, I recall. I also instructed in Mooney's and they are cramped. The Bonanza is a good comparison but has retract and to get one in the price range say below $120K you are looking at an older plane.

Verdict? Quote from Van years ago: (actually a paraphrase) "I will never build a 4-place until I can do better than the factory 4-places already on the market. Why build a plane that only matches the performance of a Bonanza you can already buy for $40,000." Well clearly he changed his mind, and it's a good thing.

Well Bonanza, Comanche, Mooney, C-182 all are good planes and the RV-10 does what Van set out to do, build something that is better than you can buy off the shelf and embodies the "total Performance." Plus the 4-place factory planes in the $80,000- $120,000 price range (approx build price of RV-10) are old, sometimes 30 years or more. The RV-10 will be new and cost less to operate and maintain.

Well from what I am hearing Van did it again:
The RV-10 is not a late model turbo Mooney but pretty close in performance
The RV-10 is not as rugged as a C-182 for soft filed, but it is close
The RV-10 is a nice looking plane and on par with the Bonanza
The RV-10 is well a RV, what else can you say, Nuf said.

Bottom line the RV-10 is going to be more fun to fly with the stick and great handling. Plus you built it yourself, what could be better. There is no comparison. I would never put down any great design, 182, Bonanza, Comanche and Mooney. These are all great designs and really stand on their own merits. The RV-10 will no doubt became a great plane in history also.

G

Personally, I think I'll probably build a Bearhawk after the RV-7 (may as well...I bought the plans...)

http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com

For a 4 seater w/outstanding cargo capacity, off field capactiy, range and cruise speed, I think it's hit the sweet spot.

I love all the single and 2 seater RV's, but the -10 just never turned me on for some reason. Just personal preference...it doesn't meet my own personal mission I have in mind for a 4 seater. That said, -10 owners seem to all really like the airplane as far as I can tell.

I would like one of each please

jcoloccia said:

Personally, I think I'll probably build a Bearhawk after the RV-7. For a 4 seater w/outstanding cargo capacity, off field capacity, range and cruise speed, I think it's hit the sweet spot.

I love all the single and 2 seater RV's, but the -10 just never turned me on for some reason. Just personal preference...it doesn't meet my own personal mission I have in mind for a 4 seat-er.

Click to expand...

The high strut-ed wing, 130 mph (113 kts) rag/tube is a whole different kind of plane than a 190 mph 165 kts.

I agree the Bearhawk is a nice plane. Rag and tube is fantastic structure. It looks like the wings metal and control surfaces are a mix of metal/fabrix. Cool. I always wanted a pumped up super cub with big tires and STOL kit. You know, the kind of plane you can land on a sand-bar or off airport.

However alas, I am not that rich and can only afford one plane, thus I am slumming with one RV-7. However for 4-place I always felt 2 seats are plenty, and if I want a 4 place or even a 6 place to take a group of people on a tour, I would rent for one those occasion.

Now the Dream would be if may hanger was real large (100' x 200' x 25') and I could have any and all the planes I wanted, I would have: RV-7/8, A Citation Jet, Bush plane (like above), an ultimate Acro plane and a Amphib on floats, say a Dehavilland Beaver (radial of course) or Turbine Caravan.

The cool part is the RV can go fast (cross country), can do acro, can land and take off on short fields. I really never had much interest in amphibian's but there is at least one RV-6 on floats. I think for one plane for poor folks the RV is the sweet spot. G

"God made the 182- man built all the others."

gmcjetpilot said:

The high strut-ed wing, 130 mph (113 kts) rag/tube is a whole different kind of plane than a 190 mph 165 kts.

I agree the Bearhawk is a nice plane. Rag and tube is fantastic structure. It looks like the wings metal and control surfaces are a mix of metal/fabrix. Cool. I always wanted a pumped up super cub with big tires and STOL kit. You know, the kind of plane you can land on a sand-bar or off airport.

However alas, I am not that rich and can only afford one plane, thus I am slumming with one RV-7. However for 4-place I always felt 2 seats are plenty, and if I want a 4 place or even a 6 place to take a group of people on a tour, I would rent for one those occasion.

Now the Dream would be if may hanger was real large (100' x 200' x 25') and I could have any and all the planes I wanted, I would have: RV-7/8, A Citation Jet, Bush plane (like above), an ultimate Acro plane and a Amphib on floats, say a Dehavilland Beaver (radial of course) or Turbine Caravan.

The cool part is the RV can go fast (cross country), can do acro, can land and take off on short fields. I really never had much interest in amphibian's but there is at least one RV-6 on floats. I think for one plane for poor folks the RV is the sweet spot. G

Click to expand...

Actually, the Bearhawk cruises at 160MPH. That's why I considered it before settling on the RV-7....it's a pretty reasonable plane (the acro capabilities of the RV-7, and the fact that it's normally just the two of us, finally won us over, though). My dream hangar is, of course, an RV-7, a Bearhawk, and a Pitts. Maybe 2 Pitts, 'cause you can't ever have too many

Jay,

I have the Vans DVD, and yes the rear seats are removable. But there is the structural cross member. Not sure if you can put a pin in it and have it swing/ removeable to fit bikes into. I am also interested in taking the mountain bikes with.

Good luck. I am only 5-10 years behind you!!!! Wife permitting!!!

John

The rear seats are attached with pins and are easily removable. The crossmember behind the seats is not removable. For reference the bottom of it is about 17 3/4" above the cabin bottom, top is 18" below the cabin ceiling and aft edge is about 18" in front of the baggage bulkhead. With the rear seats removed there is a LOT of space for "stuff".

If you need other measurements or info let me know.

Bob
RV-10 #40105 (finishing)

Build or buy

The 182 is a great airplane. You wouldn't regret owning one. If you like to build, the 10 would be a good choice. Building takes alot of time and dedication, so be sure you're up for the task. If flying is your only goal, a store bought plane is a good value.

While I look forward to flying my airplane, I really enjoy the creative process, and don't consider it a chore to spend thousands of hours in the garage.

The performance specs that were quoted by gmcjetpilot were for the 235hp RV-10 not the standard 260 HP RV-10. You can also buy an RV-10. There is one every now and then that pops up for sale. The cabin on the RV-10 is 48 " wide while the 182 is 42". The back seat of the RV-10 is 46" wide. I think if you can fit it in a 182 you probably can fit it in a RV-10 and have room to spare.

I've been beating this topic around inside my noggin for about a year now. I have just over 400 hrs on my RV8 and dearly...DEARLY love it. However, we're now a three person family, and I'm tired of leaving either my wife, or son behind every Saturday for $100 breakfast burritos. We've been living at an airpark now for just over a year and it's downright sad that my wife hasn't flown with me once! Also, my son at 5 years of age, loves to fly, but is lost in the back seat "hole" and isn't able to get really engaged in the flying. I can't even see him very well, even with the little rear view mirror on the glareshield. (My fat head takes up most of the view.)

So, I need side by side seating, and more seats. I started an RV10 and have completed the empecone kit. This was done before the airpark move. Our garage/hangar isn't huge, and any low wing airplane will gobble up the garage portion, thus the cars would be outside a lot. We've come to love having warm, dry cars to get into! So, we need a high wing! I've also come to the stark realization that the -10 will cost too much in both $$ and time than I can support. I'd really like a C-180, but a straight tail 182 would be less expensive yet has that icky sissy wheel on it.

So, my plan thus far is to sell the RV8 and RV10 empecone kit, buy spam (ack!), then maybe build a lightweight, simple RV4 or even RV3 at a comfortable pace to keep the RV grin.

These are (very) tough decisions, and all a/c mentioned are wonderful, but none are the end-all for every mission. Oh, and I've flown Van's demo RV10 and while a most excellent airplane, it didn't have nearly the WOW factor that the two seaters have. And, as for speed, sure it's faster than a 182, but if you like flying, what's the hurry? Also as previously mentioned, draggin a mountain bike, camping gear or whatever, over the nice shiny new wing of an RV10 would be most stressful for me. Banging this stuff into a 180 or 182 wouldn't upset me at all.

Happy new year to all!

Baja_Traveler said:

What you should REALLY be comparing is the -10 and a Glasair Sportsman 2+2, not a spam can from your grandpa's era. For coolness and speed the -10 wins hands down. For load carrying capacity (Including two mountain bikes and camping gear) the 2+2 can't be beat - along with the ability to swap gear from trike to taildragger in an hour. Cost to build is about equal for the two.

Click to expand...

I like the idea of the Sportsman 2+2 - most of the time you're flying with 1 or 2 people and hauling around stuff.

The builder completion program that Glassair has is interesting. It's basiclly a factory build assist that gets the airplane ready for interior finishing in about 15-20 build days (they advertise "two weeks to taxi", but 15-20 days seems to be about right). You loose a lot on customization options, but get experienced help and have someone to walk you through the steps and parts.

jchang10 said:

Thank you for the answers, as it has helped some.

However, what do people plan to do if they have a maintenance problem on a cross-country while away from the home field. I was told some MX's avoid working on non-certified airplanes due to liability. Ideally, the owner/builder could handle all maintenance, but performing work while remote would be less likely.

Jay

Click to expand...

Jay,

It all depends on the FBO you are dealing with. I've seen some hand the owner/builder tools for no charge or a minimal hourly rate. I've also seen some tell owners to get that darn tin can off their ramp. I think that last guy would have said that to a C-195 Businessliner just because he has never worked on one.

The truth is, RV's are more like C-172's or Piper PA-28's, they are everywhere. The best part is most of us are building them "right" so they have fewer problems and if they do, you will be there to direct the A&P, if he insists on working on it.

Either way, you are better off because you know the plane and the A&P can't BS you about the problem.

C-182 refurb

A friend recently bought a slightly damaged 182 and is having it totally redone. New engine, prop, paint, interior and all the speed mods that are available. I think if you added all the speed claims up, this thing might hit something like warp 3. Actually, I think he is shooting for something around 180 mph. I am following the rebuild closely and will be interested to see how it really does. He will probably have about as much in it as a decent dash ten (I know he got the hull very reasonably.) I personally like the 182 better than any of the other Cessna's I have flown for all the reasons given. Will post something on it in a couple of months when it flies again. He will have a fairly decent Piper 140 for sale soon, if anyone is interested.

Bob Kelly

Sportsman glasair v RV

the_other_dougreeves said:

I like the idea of the Sportsman 2+2 - most of the time you're flying with 1 or 2 people and hauling around stuff.

Click to expand...

I like the sportsman as well but I have seen one built up close. Not regarding your builder assist I can say it is a complicated airplane. I think the structure is clever as all heck, the wings aluminum, cabin welded tube with fiberglass skin and tail boom fiberglass with I recall metal horizontal, really using the best of each material. The welded tube cockpit makes a safe "roll cage" and a great "hard points" to hang the engine, landing gear, wings and tail from. The down side is its a little complicated. The controls are cable with pulleys. It really makes you appreciate the simplicity and elegance of RV's. I like the idea it can be converted to a trike or TG gear. I think there is a wing fold option and it looks like it can be rugged and fly fairly slow. However I notice the push the "Back country" flying with the Sportsman but not sure if its up to a Super Cub or Mule? Any way its not a cheap airplane and I guess it could be a nice plane but its too slow for me. It would make a better float plane than a RV

Sportsman vs. RV's

the_other_dougreeves said:

I like the idea of the Sportsman 2+2 - most of the time you're flying with 1 or 2 people and hauling around stuff.

The builder completion program that Glassair has is interesting. It's basically a factory build assist that gets the airplane ready for interior finishing in about 15-20 build days (they advertise "two weeks to taxi", but 15-20 days seems to be about right). You loose a lot on customization options, but get experienced help and have someone to walk you through the steps and parts.

Click to expand...

The program is about $134,000 to $139,000 for a basic VFR plane. With options: avionics, engine, prop and misc wing fold and gear, can add $6,000 to $26,000. I wounder how you can build a plane, 51% at least, in two weeks?

The Sportsman is a very complex plane, clever but complex. The fuselage cabin area is welded steel tube. The wings are typical aluminum construction. The tail boom and rudder is all fiberglass. The horizontal stab, like the wing is typical aluminum. Funny (ironic) the founder of fiberglass kit planes designed a plane using steel tube and aluminum. However funny as it is, it using material for its best intended purpose. The steel "roll cage" for the cabin area makes the perfect "hard points" to hang things off like: Engine, Gear, Wings, Tail. It is also strong and very safe. The cabin is covered in a fiberglass nonstructural fairing, like a hard fabric cover, which it is and transitions into the all fiberglass aft fuselage. Interesting thing in Mooney's and old Piper Apaches (twins) use this method where the cabin is steel tube covered in metal and the aft fuselage transitions into an all aluminum "semi-monoque" (stiffened shell) structure. Some people call is "stressed skin" meaning the skin carries the load vs. load thru a truss of tubes. Although there is no structural fiberglass on these planes it shows this transition from the steel welded tube/rag construction days and aluminum sheet metal construction and the hybrid design they produced. Needless to say Mooney's and Apaches (Aztecs) are strong planes. Another example of mixed materials are old Bellancas' with steel tube/rag fuselage and wood wings (spar, ribs and spar).

I have seen one Sportsman go together (slowly). It is super complicated in part due to the different materials and hybrid design. The controls are cables and make you appreciate the RV's simple but elegant controls.


(notice you can change gear. I don't know why you would want to but you can do that on the RV, but it requires a engine mount change (except RV-8) and lots of work. RV-8 I don't think could be changed over, but again why? We all know the tail dragger is best. )

Price wise I don't think there is a RV vs. Sportsman comparison. A RV QB kit is $26,000, and even with hired "assistance" I doubt you get near the $140,000 price, at least for a 2 seater. Back to the RV-10, the QB kit is $46,000 and probably get it in under the $140,000 mark.

The Sportsman is shown as a "back country" plane. It's probably OK with a bigger engine, but it's no Piper Super Cub, Mule, Bearhawk or STOL C-180. Also I gather Glastars/Sportsman's with 160 HP are underpowered. The program above calls for a 180 HP engine as standard and the a XIO-390 (210HP) as a $6.3k up-grade option, which seems like a deal, but it requires a $5.3 prop option. If I was flying in the mountains in short fields I would want the 390. Any way I would not want a $140,000 plane in the back country. I would find an old Piper PA-4,5,10,11,12, 14 and of course PA-18. (all the long wing piper rag-N-tube birds with bigger engine's at least 115-150hp, big tires and may be some VG's.)

Any way I think the RV plane holds it own. The sportsman is nice but its too slow for me (about +40 mph with regular tires and wheel fairings, way more with tundra tires and no wheel fairings). Also the difference in its supposed "back country" abilities does not seem to be more than a light RV.

comparisons

My comparison to the RV10 would be the Piper Saratoga/Lance. Flight plan it for 165kts, it has the 300 hp lycoming, its low wing comes normal or turbocharged. I think that fits in with the RV10 numbers. The only difference is retractable gear, and Its a fairly high cost maintenance airplane and that would make it a bit different from the RV10. The Cherokee Six matches even closer to the RV10, but is a bit slower than the Saratoga. Im not sure from what I know the RV10 can out perform the Six overall.

gmcjetpilot said:

The program is about $134,000 to $139,000 for a basic VFR plane. With options: avionics, engine, prop and misc wing fold and gear, can add $6,000 to $26,000. I wounder how you can build a plane, 51% at least, in two weeks?

Click to expand...

#1 - It's not cheap. You are paying a significant premium over a traditional QB kit like the RV. Some of this is the prefab work, some of this is the assistance at the factory, some of this is profit for Glassair. However, it is a unique idea, and for someone who wants total imersion into building, this would be interesting. The addage is "if you want an airplane to fly, buy a Cessna / Cirrus / etc. If you want an airplane to build, get an RV / Lancair / etc." This is an interesting attempt to find a middle ground.

#2 - If the FAA says the factory assist program is 51% legal, that's good enough for me. I would love to see a similar program for RVs that gets the FAA endorsement and is an immersion type environment. The FAA has made a lot of noise lately about builder assistance.

For some of us, working a few hours every day is best; for others, it's a dedicated block of time (e.g., IFR rating over 4-6 months or a 2 week, fly every day trip through the west coast and rockies in winter). The trick is to do what works best for you.[/QUOTE]

gmcjetpilot said:

Any way I think the RV plane holds it own. The sportsman is nice but its too slow for me (about +40 mph with regular tires and wheel fairings, way more with tundra tires and no wheel fairings). Also the difference in its supposed "back country" abilities does not seem to be more than a light RV.

Click to expand...

This being America, we have a choice. For some, the Sportsman makes a good choice, for others the RV-10. I think the RV-10 would be a better airplane for me when I hit 400 hours.

However, the focus of my point was more about the factory build process than the airplane. Would I take 6 to 8 weeks off work to go and build and flight test an RV with a pro? Sounds like a very good reason to work hard and save up some vacation and $$.

Brian Denk said:

So, my plan thus far is to sell the RV8 and RV10 empecone kit, buy spam (ack!), then maybe build a lightweight, simple RV4 or even RV3 at a comfortable pace to keep the RV grin.
Happy new year to all!

Click to expand...

Hey Brian,
I feel your pain but I think you are making the best decision.
I almost did the same thing within the past couple years but I just couldn't bring my self to cross over to certified. I am an A&P so it is a lot less of an issue, but I just decided I would never be happy flying something that with modifications could have greatly improved performance, but that my hands would be tied to do so.

I decided to take on an RV-6A rebuild as a primer for possibly buying a damaged RV-10 in the future. I do not wish an accident on any one... but the facts are, it will happen eventually.

Best wishes with your future airplane plans

RV-10 Comparison

Here are some comparison numbers that I put together when I was looking into building an RV-10. I think most of the data is accurate. Let me know if you think differently.

RV-10 Comparison

RV-10 Comparison

RV-10 Comparison

RV-10 Comparison




Enjoy!

Scott, I'd think that you would want to compare "retail" prices to make it a fair comparison.. So a -10 would be probably anywhere between 220 and 270k (seen asking prices in that range).

Radomir said:

Scott, I'd think that you would want to compare "retail" prices to make it a fair comparison.. So a -10 would be probably anywhere between 220 and 270k (seen asking prices in that range).

Click to expand...

The reason many people build is "sweat equity" so comparing a completed kit price is very appropriate. Also the kit can often be purchased with lessser avionics and better can be added by the builder LATER. These are all obvious, to kit builders, but often not to completed kit buyers. The fact that the performance is usually better is a bonus.

Bill Jepson

Comparing the price of pile of parts and price of another finished product is hardly an apples-to-apples comparison. I doubt that the pile of parts that comprise a Cirrus (or a Cessna) costs 350k

Radomir said:

Scott, I'd think that you would want to compare "retail" prices to make it a fair comparison.. So a -10 would be probably anywhere between 220 and 270k (seen asking prices in that range).

Click to expand...

I can see your point but I am flying a brand new plane that was much less than $220,000. At least you have an option of building the RV-10 where with the Cessna or Cirrus you don't.

But your right in the fact that if you wanted a plane tomorrow like you could get with a 182, you would have to pay $220+ for a similarly equipped RV-10.

I know two RV-10 owners/builders who moved there from a 182 and one who moved from a 206. The -10 is much faster and much more economical. One of the 182 upgraders was looking at a Cirrus but didn't want to output the $450,000 for a plane that will go a little faster than the -10 on twice the fuel, and on which he couldn't do his own maintenance. There is a trade-off in just about every decision, but there is a reason that there are 700 RV-10's either flying or being built.

Had a 182S

I owned in partnership a 1998 182S. We sold it last year.

I just signed on to build an RV10. Just finished the tail feathers.

The 182 is a great plane and a great load hauler, but it has it's deficencies. The back seats only come out with a struggle. Back seats -I would just leave them out to haul stuff, but my partner had 2 kids and needed them. The autopilot sucks (KAP140) With the back seats out you can actually sleep in the 182S ( I am 5'10" - but 6' would probably be ok) I did sleep in the plane at OSH last year.

The parts cost a fortune and there is a big AD on the engine (I figuered that that cost us $5K). It costs $170K in the current market and the G1000 models cost $325K. for 1/2 that you can get a comparable RV10.