10 vs the rest

[N941WR]

At one time or another I have had the chance to fly an RV-10 (just a little), Velocity RG, Piper Lance, Debinair (early straight tail Bonanza), and C-210.

The Lance/Saratoga is a great plane, lots of room, very stable but SLOW for the HP. You might look at a Cherokee 6 as they aren't much slower and can haul a ton!

The C-210 is a truck! Very stable, good reputation, etc. but the maintenance costs are getting up there due to age. The C-207 is basically a fixed gear version and might be worth a look. Lots of room and the gear stay down, saving you maintenance costs.

The Debonair is really a nice plane; quiet, fast, stable, good looking etc. (I know someone who has a very nice acro version, +6/-4, available for sale, complete with a 430. ? Contact me off list, if you are interested.) If I were looking to buy a certified 4 place RG, that would be the one I would look at.

Velocity RG's are VERY cool looking airplanes and make great cross country cruisers. I've flown two different ones, one with only 200 HP and one with 330 HP, both are ground hogs. Granted with 330 HP, it does get off the ground better but you aren't going to take either into a 2300' field. Oh, and you also have to carry ballast and move it around when you drop off passengers. After riding in the Velocity my wife asked why we weren't building one. When I pointed out how long the runways we were using she understood.

The RV-10 is the ticket. Fast, stable, can haul a good bit of "stuff" and people, and it is not runway limited like the Velocity.

If I were in the market for a 4 place E-AB plane, it would be the -10 hands down.

[the_other_dougreeves]

DA40 is a great plane, unmatched visibility for a 4-seater, stick, low insurance rates and very good low speed handling qualities. You can get G1000 DA40s for about 200k; steam gauge models are all 2003 and earlier and not that much cheaper. Make sure you look at ones with the 18mm main landing gear legs so that it's eligible for the 800kg MGTW increase.

I've never understood why they haven't upgraded to the 200Hp IO-360; the extra 20Hp would do that airplane a lot of good.

Pluses:
* Visibility - outstanding for a 4-seater
* Safety (visibility, glide ratio, 26g cockpit, gentle stall and handling while stalled)
* Low speed handling qualities (compare with a Cirrus!)
* Real stick (good and bad, but you're on VAF, so we'll assume you think this is good)
* Good factory support and dealer network (need a new wingtip? Get it overnight)
* Simple systems = reasonable cost annuals
* Stout landing gear (and no possibility of a gear-up landing a la Bonanza and Mooney)
* Good economy when run LOP (all DA40s are injected)

Minuses:
* Reliability / durability of the 3-blade MT prop - get the 2-blade Hartzell
* Speed, particularly without the "speed gear" - Expect 140kt, up to 150 down low. Not exactly RV-10 speed.
* Only really a 2 seat airplane with full tanks (compare to the 182)
* Long wingspan makes turbulence a little more pronounced.
* Rear door is prone to hinge damage after a few years - check it over well.
* Canopy is HOT in the south in the summer
* 40 gal tanks don't offer that much IFR range; 50 gal tanks have reduced CG envelope.
* KAP140 autopilot is flakey, and the much better Garmin autopilot is expensive and only in newer aircraft.

In short, it's a great 4-seater, fast compared to Cessnoids, slow compared to Cirri and RVs. I almost bought a 2004 steam gauge plane in a 50/50 partnership and have done a LOT of research on the DA40; PM if you want more info.

On to the RV part: The -10 is superior to the DA40 in many ways, including speed, payload and hot/high performance. Insurance will be higher and you either have to build one or buy one someone else built and like / put up with the choices they made.

If you just want to fly a IFR 4-seater, I suggest getting a DA40. If you want to build and then fly, build a -10. I highly suggest renting one for a bit to get checked out and take the airplane on a couple of trips - you'll learn a lot about whether you like it or not. DA40 would not work well for some of my regular pax (size, getting in/out of the seats) and I didn't realize this until I went flying with them.

TODR

[scarlson]

The great thing about this forum is that there is usually someone out there who has significant experience dealing with a design problem. I'm an aeronautical engineer by education, not profession, so others are better able to judge. I think that the 10 has 2-3 design issues, which have been discussed at length, and the factory has been slow to address - perhaps it's the legal climate we live in. They are the nose gear, doors, and possibly the central tunnel/fuel lines. The door design is the most serious - I always felt like I was going to fall out of the airplane if I leaned on the doors in flight. If I were to build a 10, I would add a second door latching mechanism, possibly from below, similar to the Socata TB 20/21.

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by scarlson

... If I were to build a 10, I would add a second door latching mechanism, possibly from below, similar to the Socata TB 20/21.

And that is what is so good about E-AB aircraft, you can do just that.

[doctornigel]

For the 200K I am able to spend on my hobby the RV-10 was my first choice. I will get a 200mph, 4 person, x-country plane with a new engine, new airframe, air conditioning, and new avionics. If I went with a certified plane, for the money I would be flying something very used. Also the ability to do my own maintenance, annuals and upgrades was the final plus.

[rv6rick]

If the 10 were a 'certified' aircraft then it's very possible the doors would have worked from jump street.

EXPERIMENTAL is NOT for everyone.

Originally Posted by N941WR

And that is what is so good about E-AB aircraft, you can do just that.

[RJBrown]

I struggled with the same question. Build or buy. I even went to a class and built the Vans practice kit. I planned to build a RV10. To build a IFR equipped RV10 would take 3-5 years and $175000 -$225000.
I want to fly now and so does my wife. I owned a 1980 Mooney M20k with the 305 Rocket conversion from 1994 to 2003 and really miss the freedom.
The current economic situation has brought down the cost of used planes by 20% -25%. I currently have a 1991 Mooney TLS Bravo under contract for $146000. I am going through the prebuy and final negotiation process now and hope to have it home by the end of the month. It is not a new plane, it will need paint and interior work soon. Every decision is some kind of compromise.
I live in the west and can see 2 14,000' mountains (Pikes peak and Mt Evans) from where I stand and a turbocharged engine is a real plus. Van seems very against the idea of a turbo IO540 in his planes.
For none of those above to suggest a Mooney surprises me. They are by far the fastest AND most efficient production plane available. They are available with a wide variety of engines from 200 HP Lycoming four to 305 HP turbo sixes.
Problem is I really wanted to build. It looks like a RV3 is in my future as soon as I recover from buying the Mooney.
Good luck in choosing which way to go.
Randy Brown.

[vic syracuse]

this is a great website to help you make decisions. Experimentals aren't for everyone, especially if you compare the "fly now" vs build route. I've written about the RV-10 multiple times, and I will repeat a little of it here. I have over 6000 hours, all but 400 of it in General aviation piston airplanes. We've been fortunate to own a C-182 and S-35 Bonanza for a number of years, as well as an RV-10 for a couple of years and over 500 hours of flying. I have yet to find any GA piston airplane that has all of the characteristics of the RV-10. It truly is a 4 place (4 adults) airplane, has no adverse flight characteristics that I discovered, and the passengers seem to love it, too, as they have lots of room and great views. It doesn't need turbocharging. We routinely flew it at 16k'-18k', and once even came out of Vail Colorado and went straight to 18K' (density altitude was close to 20K') with Center asking us if we could accept FL240! We had to decline as I only had canulas on board, but boy I sure wanted to try it. 90% of our flying was off of grass strips, and to some one else's comments, the only weak point I saw was the outside wheel fairing attach piece, but of course there's an aftermarket fix for that, too.
As for the doors, well they stayed shut if we closed them before we took off. We always called heading check and doors locked before the power was advanced on the runway.
As for the other comment about the seats never being full, that's mostly accurate unless you have kids or grandkids, but even with the empty seats, it is a REALLY nice riding airplane. We miss ours so much that we've started another one. We really regret having sold it, but when you are between jobs you really dont know that until after the fact.
There's lot's of choices out there. That's what makes the world go around. I'm one of the believers that nothing compares to the 10. I'm SO glad it's not certified, or we'd be paying a whole lot more for it.

Vic

[ajay]

Originally Posted by vic syracuse

this is a great website to help you make decisions. Experimentals aren't for everyone, especially if you compare the "fly now" vs build route. I've written about the RV-10 multiple times, and I will repeat a little of it here. I have over 6000 hours, all but 400 of it in General aviation piston airplanes. We've been fortunate to own a C-182 and S-35 Bonanza for a number of years, as well as an RV-10 for a couple of years and over 500 hours of flying. I have yet to find any GA piston airplane that has all of the characteristics of the RV-10. It truly is a 4 place (4 adults) airplane, has no adverse flight characteristics that I discovered, and the passengers seem to love it, too, as they have lots of room and great views....

Vic

Hey Vic,

As an rv-10 repeat offender, what changes will you make in #2. Inquiring minds want to know.

ajay

[N8Higgies]

I don't know if hearing all this info is helping me decide or just making me wish I could buy one of each of these airplanes. I have checked with a few insurance companies, and it seems like the 10, Saratoga, and A36 would all cost about the same for me. The velocity would be a bit more than those. And I think I may have convinced myself I can't quite afford a new Cirrus/Diamond. I have thought a little about the Mooney, but have also heard it's a little cramped for a 4 seater. Too many choices out there I guess. I'll keep everyone posted if I ever make up my mind.

Nate