RV-10 vs. ?????

[WA5ZXU]

Kyle,

I agree there are costs that apply equally to all aircraft and at some point even a new aircraft will need an engine overhaul and avionics upgrade. However, won't it cheaper to overhaul the engine of an experimental a/c, since the builder will be able to reinstall the overhauled engine, whereas the non-A&P owner of a certified a/c will be at the mercy of his mechanic for the install? This assumes you don't do the actual overhaul the engine yourself, which is not an option with a certified a/c.

In regards to avionics, with experimental you have the option of replacing an obsolete or unsupported piece of equipment with the latest and greatest. That is not the case in trying to retrofit the latest electronics into a certified a/c. You can buy a brand new non-certified EFIS for less than the cost to overhaul a King mechanical HSI. The spinning gyro instruments in my plane will wear out and need to be overhauled, but does an AHRS ever "wear" out?

I may well be twisting the data to get the answer that I think I want; however the reason I posted was to hear from others with a different viewpoint. So thanks for your comments.

Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright

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.

[DaleB]

Originally Posted by rocketman1988

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.

Both of those apply to children also (says the guy with five of them). So does "If you wait until you can afford it (or them) you'll never do it."

Originally Posted by rocketman1988

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

AMEN, brother!

[Jesse]

At the risk of saying something that has already been said, I would say the closest airplane for your mission besides the RV-10 is a C-182. I would say the C-182, 177 or 210 RG's, but maintenance will go way up on those, although they would be faster. IMHO, not worth the extra maintenance, which would go for the Mooneys and Bonanzas also. You can get 140+ Kts out of a 182 for under $100,000, but short of that, the RV-10 is the best for your criteria. With the short field need, that leaves out the Cirrus, Velocity, etc. Staying away from certified leaves mainly the RV-10. Yeah, there's the Team Tango or the Raven 500, but those would likely cost the same. You can get into a flying -10 for under $175,000 if you're not in a hurry and not picky, then you can upgrade as you have time/money.

[N941WR]

No one mentioned a Maule, I wonder why?

Four seats, land anywhere, OK speed, good comfort, simple, etc.

[Bill.Peyton]

I'll throw in my two cents.
I flew a 1980 Piper Archer for 20 years. I paid 50K and sold it for $75K. I spent a no-sh** total (including purchase and sale) of $168,000 over the twenty years I owned the plane, fuel not included in this number. This amounts to $8,400/yr. During that time I replaced the engine and all the avionics with the latest. My wife and I flew this aircraft over 3,000 hours. While it was relatively slow, 130kts on a good day, I flew to the east and west coasts multiple times, all over Canada, and to Florida more times then I remember. It served as a platform to obtain all our ratings and was indeed a hobby for us. It was an economical aircraft that was only limited in its use by it's speed, which NEVER prevented me from going anywhere.

I now have my newly built RV-10, which is an awesome fast aircraft, which I had just as much fun building as I do flying. I have invested over $175K and 4,000 hours in this aircraft. I could never have spent that kind of money or time when I was younger on a hobby.

My point is, you don't need a fast aircraft to have fun and execute your trips. Examine your budget, and let it be the deciding factor. If you can afford a -10, you will never be disappointed with its performance!

[Mike D]

I get the old vs. new and the cost differences due to wear and tear. So just for kicks lets discuss the new airplanes of similar class.
Cirrus SR22 or SR20
Columba 300 or 350
Vans rv-10

All can be bought completed for roughly the same $220k
But the Columbia will have a G1000 or Avidine with 2 Garmin 430s and a 330 transponder. It would be hard to beat the quality of the interior of the Columbia. And a plus for me would be no chute because it can actually get out of a spin. Also the G load limits are slightly higher than the Cirrus. And it is the fastest of the 3.

The Cirrus is more popular with almost 5 times the aircraft in the field. They have a very active community and the interior and avionics are also top notch. The good is you can buy a SR20 with glass panel well under the $200k mark.
The bad is the maintenance cost on the cutters every 6 years and the chute repack every 10 years.

The SR22 adds speed and altitude improvements over the SR20, but also adds cost.

The advantage to the RV-10 is that it is experimental and should in theory be cheaper to maintain. And you can build it your way. But I doubt you will find a -10 with a G1000 or 2-GNS430w's for $200. And even with the great resources the RV community has, I doubt you can get an interior as good as the Columbia.

So I have to ask, have the -10s grown too expensive for the market? Experimental is supposed to be significantly cheaper than certified, but not in this case.

But still looking at the 180, 182, and Navion. But those are older planes and don't have the same speed as the new planes above. But you can find a complete restored (ie. new) version for $100k.

[rleffler]

Originally Posted by Mike D

The advantage to the RV-10 is that it is experimental and should in theory be cheaper to maintain. And you can build it your way. But I doubt you will find a -10 with a G1000 or 2-GNS430w's for $200.

Other than it's from Garmin, why would you want to? The experimental EFIS vendors have been cleaning Garmin's clock for years. It's just been recently that Garmin woke up an recognized the market they were overlooking. I would much rather have an AFS 5000 series as my first choice and the GRT HX as a second choice. But that's just my opinion.

I have three AFS screens in my RV-10, along with a Trutrak Gemini for my fourth screen. I also have four GPS's installed. Although only one is certified (GTN650). I can assure you it cost well south of $150k to build my RV-10. If I ever decide to sell it, it will be north of $200k.

Originally Posted by Mike D

And even with the great resources the RV community has, I doubt you can get an interior as good as the Columbia.

You obviously haven't seen too many RV-10s. Deems Davis, Ernst Frietag, and Greg Hale all custom manufactured fantastic looking interiors. Many have followed Geoff Combs lead and ordered interiors from Aerosport Product Interiors. I would compare Geoff's interior with any certified manufacturer. AS I've heard Geoff say on more than one once, if you make the interior look like the interior of a top of the line auto and/or aircraft, it will help alleviate fears of some people that are afraid to fly in an experimental. As an RV-10 builder, I just wanted a nice cross country cruiser than looks great and has many amenities to meet my family's needs.

[ppilotmike]

Again, I reiterate the Bearhawk. It meets the short field / unimproved field category, the cost category (about $100K or a little more) and carries 4 adults, baggage and full fuel. Top speed is around 150kts with a highpower engine, but also has the ability to fly slow (windows open). I think the 10 is an easier build than the Bearhawk, but it truly was a close second for me. I even took a demo ride in one at OSH. The only thing that steered me away was speed. Even though I live in Colorado, where a Bearhawk would have been an excellent performer, my family's mission is CC travel mostly. Someone else mentionned the Maule too. I think it's easy to look at the "slick" planes these days, because they are in the fore-front, but ask yourself, "what's the farthest CC I intend to make and will a few extra knots really be worth the sacrifice of the low and slow, windows open, grass strip flying experience?" It was for me, but it's something you shouldn't discount.

[David Paule]

Back to the OP's question, consider a, early Cessna 180, if you can accept a taildragger. Mine cruises at 145 kts without the wheel pants and 151 or a bit more with them (I never use them). It burns 11.3 gph at that speed and for local knocking around, I pull it back to about 6 gph and about 101 kts. For most of my cruising, I fly at about 140 kts and about 10.2 gph.

It definitely meets your other criteria as well.

Caveat, mine has gaps sealed and extra antennas removed. It has the 600-6 tires (I've landed on a beach with them) since tire sizes cost about 2 mph per increment.

The earlier ones like mine are fuel-limited and gross-weight limited. Mine weighs 1,617 lbs empty, holds 60 gallons, and has a 2,550 lb. gross.

There are STCs for higher gross, more power, speed mods, etc.

Dave