RV-10 vs. ?????

[Aerosport1]

One thing to remember about the insurance. RV-10s are insured for usually 150-200k and almost all new avionics, engine and interior, airframe.The Bonanza is 80-120k and almost everything is older. And just price out some parts on the bonanza. Its like playing Russian roulette each annual. It might be good for a couple but it will get catch up.
My RV-10 is $1000.00 more per year for insurance then my 1973 Piper challenger Cost. The piper was insured for 65k and RV-10 180K.
new versus old. Apples to oranges
I was ready to by a Bonanza before I decided to build a 10. Really glad I did the 10. FWIW


Geoff

[WA5ZXU]

I have been lurking on VAF for several weeks and have been following this thread with interest. I am trying to figure out if it makes sense to build an RV-10 to replace the 1982 Mooney that I currently own. I have always wanted to build, but never had the time, but recently retired, so now have the time.

My turbo charged Mooney gives great performance: 165 knots at 10.5 gph at 17,000ft ( or 175 knots at 24,000') with a useful load of 900 pounds. However; it is a 30 year old airframe with 3700hrs total time and parts wear out and Mooney parts are expensive, almost as much as Bonanza parts. The expected expense of maintaining the Mooney over the next ten years will pay for a large part of the cost of an RV-10. Below are the points that I am considering:

AIRFRAME
Although I try to do as much maintenance as the FARs allow, I am not an A&P, so have to pay one to work on it and it seems like something is always breaking. Many of those repairs, I feel I could do and probably do it better than my A&P, since I can take my time and don't have to make a profit like my mechanic. My annuals have been costing about $1.5K to $2.0K/yr and I have been spending about $5K/yr in repairs. I looked into getting my A&P license, but going to A&P school here would cost between $20K to $40K and take two years, going full time. In about the same time frame and for the same cost, I could assemble a large portion of the RV-10 airframe.

ENGINE
The Mooney's engine is about 900 hrs SMOH and Continental engines often need a top OH around 1000 to 1200hrs. I expect that will cost $10K - $12K. Additionally flying 150 hrs per year, the Mooney's engine will be past TBO in about six years. A field over haul will cost about ~$45K+R&R or Factory Reman ($53K) +R&R or Factory New ($62K) + R&R). Any of those options would pretty much buy an new Lycoming IO540 for the RV-10.

AVIONICS
It could cost $15K or more to repair the Mooney's 30 year old KFC-200 autopilot, which would more than cover installing a three panel Dynon or Garmin EFIS in the RV-10, a couple of times. The non-certified EFIS's appear to have far greater capabilities than what I have and I could never afford the cost to install certified avionics in the Mooney. I will also need to replace the KT76A xpdr with an ADS-B compatible before 2020. At some point Garmin will stop supporting the GNC530W and I be forced to upgrade. So what I am likely to spend on avionics repair and upgrades in the Mooney will pay for a nice IFR panel in the RV-10.

PAINT/INTERIOR
The Mooney's 20 year old interior probably rates a 6-7 and would cost $8K-$10K to replace. My wife, who is very supportive of my airplane addiction, would like this sooner than later. The paint looks good from 20 ft away, but it is showing it's wear. A new paint job will cost $10K-$16K. Those costs would pay for a nice interior and paint on an RV-10.

BUILD AN RV-10?
The RV-10 appears to give about the same performance as my Mooney but with a little more useful load, but a higher fuel burn. It would be all new and maintenance costs should be lower. Replacement parts from Van's seem cheaper than parts from Mooney, provided the factory remains open to produce replacement parts. With the repairman's certificate, I should be able to do all the maintenance and annual inspections myself, greatly reducing those expenses as compared to the Mooney.

Besides the RV-10's fuel burn, the only thing that appear to be more expensive than the Mooney is insurance. I am currently paying $1250/yr for liability ($1M/$100K) and $110K hull coverage. I have seen other mentioning $2500 to $3500 for insurance, but part of that might be in the higher hull values of an RV-10.

What I don't know is the resale value of an RV-10 versus a certified a/c and the ease of selling it. Seems the market for an experimental-home built would be smaller than for a certified a/c? The other unknown is the residual liability of the buyer's family coming after the builder should there be an accident. Probably not a factor with a certified a/c.

I would invite anyone who has owned a certified a/c and then built, operated and maintained a RV-10 to comment on any of the above.

[Mike D]

Alan, seems you provide the best antidotes as the great reasons to buy or build an experimental. The cost of maintaining or upgrading a certified is well out of my desire of things to spend money on.

In my search for a nice 4-place, I ran across a SR20 for $65k. The reason for such a low price is the maintenance needed. It needs a repack of the shoot and a crack in the mount. Such a shame that this would reduce the price nearly $100k.

So my thought for now is to find a -10 to build.

[Mike S]

Originally Posted by WA5ZXU

I have been lurking on VAF for several weeks

Alan,welcome aboard

Originally Posted by WA5ZXU

My turbo charged Mooney gives great performance: 165 knots at 10.5 gph at 17,000ft ( or 175 knots at 24,000')

Here is my 10 at 13.5 altitude, flowing 9.5. Ground speed is 212 MPH/183K. Winds aloft were a tailwind most likely, but I have no idea how much.

Sorry, but at the time I did not have the TAS set in the readout, I was running it in the MPG mode------was getting 22.2 MPG.

[Kyle Boatright]

Originally Posted by WA5ZXU

I would invite anyone who has owned a certified a/c and then built, operated and maintained a RV-10 to comment on any of the above.

Alan, a lot of the cost issues you point out are true of any airplane of age. In 10 years, today's new RV-10 owners will be shelling out big bucks to repair or replace their G430's or their 10" redundant EFIS's. Some will need that expensive top overhaul you mentioned and some will be at TBO, needing a $30-40K rebuild (with accessories).

All you're doing with a new aircraft is delaying those expenses a decade (or whatever). So unless your window is short (and if you're looking to build, it isn't), the financial argument for a -10 isn't as good as you make it sound.

[Sam Buchanan]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Alan, seems you provide the best antidotes as the great reasons to buy or build an experimental. The cost of maintaining or upgrading a certified is well out of my desire of things to spend money on.

In my search for a nice 4-place, I ran across a SR20 for $65k. The reason for such a low price is the maintenance needed. It needs a repack of the shoot and a crack in the mount. Such a shame that this would reduce the price nearly $100k.

So my thought for now is to find a -10 to build.

" It needs a repack of the shoot and a crack in the mount. "

Wow...at first I thought that was some of that clever Aussie slang!

Then I noticed Michael was from TX so had to think about it a little more. Think I have it figgered out now.

[rocketman1988]

Please take one other thing into consideration when considering cost....your time.

Let's assume you make 50 bucks an hour and the cost of your build is 150K and 2000 hours (another 100K) which in reality makes the build cost 250K. If you build, don't forget to add in the cost of rentals or maintaining another plane if you desire to keep you skill levels up.

So, do you figure in the cost of your time when you golf? Mow the grass? Eat dinner? Point is, if you count all the time as money, the best thing you can do is nothing.

If you buy a flying plane, it will keep the cost at 150K and you get the advantage of purchasing a plane that most folks cannot get their building time cost back Work some OT and you can have it paid for unlike spending the time to build. Of course you don't get the same satisfaction as a "you built it".

Do you really think that you can keep the cost "at 150k"? A friend bought a nice 210 for $145k and used that same argument. When they reached $225k they stopped counting. Then there is the $2000+ annuals...if nothing is wrong...

Then again, if you don't have anything better to do or want to forego other things you are interested in, build. Just remember you can't get time back.

Are you applying that same logic to everything you do? You know, maybe golf, hunting, cars, dinner, mowing the grass, etc. You can't get that time back, either. Some of us build because they want to, not because they "have nothing better to do". If you are building because you have "nothing better to do", I don't think I would want to fly your airplane...

Best piece of financial advice I can give you is to consider the potential price of a divorce if you build. Unfortunately, taking time away from a marriage has the potential of a much higher price tag than building or buying. Ask yourself if your marriage can stand the time expense. There is a reason that airplanes are know as Aluminum Mistresses.

Rule #1 is NEVER take financial advice from a pilot ;^}. Seriously, though, building without the spouse on board is definitely bad. It would be prudent to discuss the process with the spouse prior to beginning...who knows, maybe they will discover a new hobby.

There are 2 things I have learned about this hobby (really hobbies in general):

1. You cannot justify it.

2. There is never a good time.

I, however, am not going to be the guy that turns 65 and says, "I wish that I had done that."

Build on!
__________________

[aerhed]

A penny saved is a dollar earned. 2000 hours of wages gets a big chomp from the taxman.

[Toobuilder]

I think something that gets lost in these types of discussions is the fact that some regard airplanes as a "hobby", and some as a lifestyle. Some of us are in both. I need a Rocket to fly, but I sure don't want to build one. OTOH, I'm happily building a tube and fabric, heavy hauler. The Rocket is a transportation machine, so yes, I would count any time spent on construction as a financial impact. The other project is simply for enjoyment, so it is not taking any of my "spare" time.

In other words, I get paid to go to work because I'd much rather be doing something else with my time. Same way with a Rocket - I'd much rather be flying one than working on one - so I would count the build time as a financial loss.

Now, to tie to this thread, I'd bet that most people considering a -10 are more interested in the end product than the journey getting there. Yes, there are those that would not trade the time building for anything, but I'll bet a bunch of you would gladly buy "your" -10 already built from someone else (especially if that someone donated all their labor for free).

In the end, the -10 is a serious machine that falls a little outside the "hobby" category. If you just want to kill time in the shop, you'd crank out a few RV-3's.

[rocketman1988]

"...In the end, the -10 is a serious machine that falls a little outside the "hobby" category..."

Yoda would say, "Size matters not...".

He also said, "Do or do not, there is no try..."

I am building a -10, and yes, it is ONE of my hobbies. The main one, right now, but a hobby, nonetheless...