New Pilot, RV-10 or Bonanza or Turbo Lance II

I am a new pilot (a massive 15 hours logged, but in pretty nice aircraft (mostly Maule M7 with some Bonanza, RV10 and tin can (Cessna 152) hours) who wants to buy a plane that I will ultimately be flying to train in. I am going to get one sooner than later, so why not sooner and really get to know the aircraft?

My mission is both pleasure and cross country. I am 28 years old, I have a wife and 2.5 year old son (who both love flying and support this more than any of my other wide range of eclectic hobbies). I am not a small person. I am 6 foot 2, 250ish, large frame.

I have a great mentor with 40+ years of flight and 11,000 plus hours who really knows aircraft and we have found great deals on equally great aircraft and narrowed down my choices to the following three.

I realize this IS a RV10 forum. But I have read similar threads and people have given many unbiased answers, which is what I am looking for. Any aircraft I wind up in will be well equipped from a digital avionics point of view, and the RV10 I am interested in already is. So, here are the details and my thoughts on the aircraft:

Beechcraft F33A Bonanza - 100,000 - 1977, 1950 TT, 405 SFNew engine, decent avionics (Needs a 430 or 530 garmin) - In annual now.

Turbo Lance II - 110,000 - 2000 TT, 900 SFNew engine, I love the layout of the instrumentation and the passanger area, nice interior, equipped already for O2. Already has a Garmin 530, maybe just a little bit to spend in avionics but not required. I can probaby get annual at this price tossed in.

RV 10 - 130,000 - 2007 model, 400ish hours on the frame and 1700 hours on the engine, nice avionics. 260 HP Engine. Engine has great compression, even though its near the end of its factory rated service life.

The first two fly well and have a ton of room for taking the family and friends on trips. In all fairness, most trips would be between 2-4 hours air time, so extreme comfort is not a total requirement, but the room would be nice.

The RV 10 flies, well like a RV 10. It uses less gas, and I can definitely fly it easier and better than anything else I have sat behind. The builder is happy to come up for the first annual and teach my AE all about it.

Please, share with me your experience and thoughts. I know ultimately I will be happy with any of the three, its just a really hard decision and I would like some input.

James

Your choice.

If money's no object (speaking strictly about maintenance and operating costs) then go for the one you want to fly the most. The lance and bonanza surely have a more comfortable passenger cabin, but you won't be back there, so it's really whether or not your family cares about that. Since all of them have about equal useful loads and each is big enough for your family, the only difference I can see is whether or not you intend to pack in a bunch of people (i.e. 6 instead of 4) for a short (very short) local flight with little fuel. If not, then I think the larger cabin of the lance and bonanza would merely be there to provide bragging rights on the ground Dlook how big my plane is!). The 10 could be a good buy to fly out the engine and put in a new one or get it overhauled. Then your avionics and aircraft would be very up-to-date and your operating expenses and insurance would likely be cheaper. If I were you, I'd go for the 10, but I'm biased...

Welcome to VAF!!!!

RVnTN said:

The RV 10 flies, well like a RV 10. It uses less gas, and I can definitely fly it easier and better than anything else I have sat behind. The builder is happy to come up for the first annual and teach my AE all about it.



James

Click to expand...

James, welcome aboard the good ship VAF.

Your quote above says it all, so why are you waffling???

Go for it

Things to think about...

RVnTN said:

I am a new pilot (a massive 15 hours logged, but in pretty nice aircraft (mostly Maule M7 with some Bonanza, RV10 and tin can (Cessna 152) hours) who wants to buy a plane that I will ultimately be flying to train in....

...Beechcraft F33A Bonanza - 100,000 - 1977, 1950 TT, 405 SFNew engine, decent avionics (Needs a 430 or 530 garmin) - In annual now.

Turbo Lance II - 110,000 - 2000 TT, 900 SFNew engine, I love the layout of the instrumentation and the passanger area, nice interior, equipped already for O2. Already has a Garmin 530, maybe just a little bit to spend in avionics but not required. I can probaby get annual at this price tossed in.

RV 10 - 130,000 - 2007 model, 400ish hours on the frame and 1700 hours on the engine, nice avionics. 260 HP Engine. Engine has great compression, even though its near the end of its factory rated service life....

Please, share with me your experience and thoughts. I know ultimately I will be happy with any of the three, its just a really hard decision and I would like some input.

James

Click to expand...

James -

Here are a few things to think about while you mull over the three different airplanes. The first thing that jumped out at me was the fact that you intend to use the airplane to finish up your training - and I hope that will include an instrument rating .

With that in mind I would steer you away from the Turbo T-Tail Lance. Turbo charged engines require much more attention and care than non-turboed ones. They do not do well in a training environment - I know this from first hand experience. Rapid power changes (i.e. practicing stalls, touch and go's, emergency decents...) produce what we call "shock cooling" and that will kill that engine faster than an old Ford will leave you stranded. Also somthing to think about with the T-Tail Lance - Taking off or Landing (more so landing ) the airplane can run out of trim when there are 2 normal size guys riding in the aft two seats and no one riding in th middle 2 seats. (Also from personal experence...) I've got time in the T-Tail Arrow and Seminole and neither one of those has the same "wierd" landing characteristics. The only thing that makes sense to me is the added length of the Lance fuselage messes with the prop wash/ airpflow over the elevator to the point that it messes things up. Piper only made these things for 2 years before they switched back to th conventional tail, so.... Last thing to think about on the Turbo version of the Lance is the price of a new engine - about $70,000.00 last time I was involved with putting one on. Now, if you were to entertain a "Straight Tail Lance" (1976 thru very early 1978) you would eliminate the turbo AND the T-Tail. I have a BUNCH of time in the staright tail Lance and Saratoga and they are wonderful, forgiving airplanes that wouldn't be too much to handle finishing up a private ticket.

As far as a Bonaza is concerned - the biggest thing I can pass along is ou'll need to be aware of how fast the airplane will accelerate in a decent. A gentleman I did some flying for for a number of years learned to fly in a mid '80's F-33A and the biggest issue I had flying with him in the Bo' was he seemed to always get behind the airplane getting into the traffic pattern. So with some planning, you should be able to handle it OK. I will say, as much as people talk about the flying qualities of the -10, I'll also say that nothing flies like a Beech. I'll always remember my first flight in a Bonanza (a F-33 too)

BUT - because you're asking for opinions here, then I would have to strongly suggest going with the -10. And here's why...

First - fixed gear. This is a biggie. Because of your experience and what you plan to use the airplane for, the odds of you forgeting to put the gear down are substantially higher than that of someone who isn't learning how to fly. Not trying to rain on your parade - its just a fact, and sometimes as much as I'd like them to, facts don't lie. Second - you will be using the plane for primary training, the engine will be put through more abuse than if the plane was being used strictly for cross country flights - and with the times that are on the -10 engine, you can train all you like, finish running out the engine and then overhaul it when its time. Third - INSURANCE!! I'm sure you can find an underwriter that will insure you in a Bonanza or a Lance or a -10 but I'll bet a dime to a dollar that you can get if for FAR less in a -10. And sense we're talking dollars here - the -10 will be much cheaper to operate as well by virtue of more simple operating systems - big one being no turbo's, no retracts, and so on. Remember that all three of these airplanes your talking about cruise between 150-165 kts. On a long flight, you're talking maybe 5-10 minutes diference in total flight time. I know the book says the Turbo Lance will go fater than 165...riiight... How often do you want to climb to 20,000 feet and be sucking on O2 (along with your wife and little one...).....

I know that if you ask many people about the pit falls of turbo charged engines, you'll get many answers. I've logged a little over 5,000 hours flying both continental and lycoming turbo motors. In all that time, I've yet to overhaul one in anything less than 300 hours past TBO. But, YMMV...

Go with the 10. It will do everything you want and allow you alot of room to grow in your flying without breaking the bank. You will not be disapointed.

daniel

Hawker Beechcraft

Beechcraft parts have always had the reputation of being $$$expensive. Hawker Beechcraft is about to declare or is already in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Van's is still making parts for the RV-10.

RV-10 or Bonanza

A Lance is going to fly like a big yellow school bus compared to a Bonanza or a -10. In the interest of full disclosure, I haven't flown a -10 buy have flown Bonanzas for a long time. Pipers haul a good load but are heavy on the nose and fly heavy. The fun factor on the Lance isn't going to be anywhere near the Bonanza or the -10.

The Bonanza is a easy to fly. It is a high performance airplane and as such deserves your respect. That said, it fly's like a Skyhawk with the gear down. One of the Bonanza's best qualities is that it is easy to fly. The IO-520 is a very smooth power plant.

I chose the short body Bonanza many years ago because I wanted to haul the family but I wanted a fun flying plane when I was alone, which is most of the time. I was never disappointed with my choice.

Plane choice

Welcome to aviation Interesting question that has come up before. I've flown all the mentioned planes and all are great. I currently have an RV10 and it's a great plane. BUT for a student pilot none of them would be my choice. The most important thing as a student pilot is to learn to fly and not manage instruments. I would look for a good Cessna 140 or maybe a citabria and buy it and learn to fly stick and rudder. (their are other good tail wheels also) That's assuming you could find a decent instructor. If none could be found buy a Cessna 172 and learn to fly. All of these choices are available cheap and could be resold after training. Also Many insurance companies may not like trainees flying your high performance choices. At your age you will have years to fly the fast ones. Just learn the basics well. IMHO. LBB

Guys,

Thanks for all the great advice. I see myself getting my instrument rating immediately after my Private ticket. In fact we are planning a around the country (Depart Nashville, fly north to Chicago to have dinner with a friend, then to the Maine coast line and around the coast line to Washington then to Alaska if conditions are favorable) to originally build up hours so I ..could.. get insurance on the Bonanza. Of course, insurance likes the auto retract on the piper, and also the fixed gear on the RV.

A few questions, as some of you might have been there, or at least put thought into it:

1) If I get a year down the road and really want something with more cabin area, will it be hard for me to sell the RV being its second owner and not the guy who popped the rivets in, being able to vouch for the quality of the kit build?

2) Would you see it being a comfortable platform for my stated above flight plan? We are planning on taking my CFI, his wife, my wife and his 7 month old. I really hope my Bose A20 can handle an upset 7 month old like they can engine noise

3) Also I am thinking of the Cirrus SR 22 platform. I can get a 03 model with duel G 650s for 219,000 with 880 on frame and engine. Yup, its 100k in price jump, but I really like the idea if I croak in flight or something unrecoverable happens, at least having a really good chance of surviving the impact using the on frame parachute. It is hard to quantify safety for a feature you hope to never use though. Then again I have about 20 of those in my safes as well, plus the hunting rifles I hope to constantly use

Thanks again,
James

First, as you mentioned, we all are going to be biased towards the RV-10.

My first concern would be insurance on any of the three aircraft. If you haven't talked to your insurance agent yet, you may be in for a surprise. It may cost $4-5k to insure the aircraft while training.

I know a RV-10 builder that current owns a Bonanza. Email me and I can forward you his contact information.

I think the best advantage for the RV-10 is that it's not a certified aircraft. This means that you have more options at usually less cost for avionics. You may ave a better panel than you will find in a traditional Bonanza or Lance. I can't specifically comment since I don't know what's in the used RV-10that you are looking at potentially buying.

Maintenance is also going to be significantly less cost than those other aircraft.

All I recommend is to start writing down all the positive and negative attributes of each aircraft. The one with the longest list of positives and the shortest list of negatives would be the one to consider.

You may want to consider buying or leasing a Cherokee or something similiar for a few years. I had a Cherokee 180 for three years, invested $20k into the panel, and broke even when I sold it. It allowed me to rack upa couple hundred hours and earn my instrument rating. With over 300 hours and an instrument rating, RV-10 insurance is significantly more affordable.

Bob

F33A is a nice machine. Running costs will be higher.

Forget the Lance

RV10 V F33A

The cost V capability the RV will win hands down. But in the certified world a Bo is the go.

Beat up a rental aircraft while you get your private pilots licence. You'll have a better understanding of what you want then, and you won't be tearing up your own airplane/engine.

Everything LifeisGood said.... Including the part about flying a Beech. Used to fly a Colemill Baron, my second favorite airplane I've flown. Also, until you can comfortably navigate the right way as a PPL (stopwatch and map) don't get hung up on the panel. Worry about that when you start your instrument ticket.

true

Sig600 said:

Beat up a rental aircraft while you get your private pilots licence.

Click to expand...

+1

I would not let anyone use my plane for getting there liscence

RVnTN said:

Guys,



1) If I get a year down the road and really want something with more cabin area, will it be hard for me to sell the RV being its second owner and not the guy who popped the rivets in, being able to vouch for the quality of the kit build?



Thanks again,
James

Click to expand...

I think it is going to be difficult to sell anything in 130K price point.

As for insurance, the market is soft. I doubt you will have any trouble insuring the Lance or Bo. Don't know about he -10. A friend just transitioned into a V35A with an IO-550 with 100 hours total time. Paid a bit of a premium, but nowhere
near the prices mentioned in this thread.

I wouldn't recommend any of these airplanes unless you intend to start on your instrument immediately. Fast airplanes get you to the weather.......fast.

rleffler said:

I know a RV-10 builder that current owns a Bonanza.

Click to expand...

Hey Bob, I resemble that remark!

Yes, the bank and I own a '66 V35 and am building a -10. The Bonanza a great traveling machine and I really like her a lot!

If you'll give me a few moments I'll explain a bit more. I've told this story to plenty of people before so it's no secret, just not sure that I've published it permanently to the internet before...but that's okay. The biggest reason I bought the Bo was because of my family. When I started building the -10 my son was 9, but after a couple years working on her and due to work, deployments, moves, etc I saw the writing on the wall that I would not finish the -10 before he figured out that doing things with mom and dad (aka flying), was as cool as girls and cars; so we got the Bonanza to fly as a family before I ran out of time with him. And thus far it's worked, we've flown all around the country, Canada, Oshkosh twice, been in formations, seen amazing weather and basically made countless memories over the past 3 years/400 hours. I've continued to work on the -10 throughout and am right now caught in fiberglass/door purgatory (okay, maybe that a bit strong...but it's close). I continue to work on the -10, but it is definitely slower going since I have a flyable plane (which also need care and attention too). But I like to build, and I like to fly, so I'm okay the situation.

So James, after all of that, my answer to you is that it doesn't really matter *what* you fly, just that you *do* fly--there's nothing else in the world like it...as you know. I'm sure you can create a spreadsheet and analyze every minute detail; ask ten people and get a dozen different answers; and try to guess the future....but I recommend you go with your gut and it'll all be okay. The Bonanza is a great plane as is I believe the RV-10 is too. I am happy for you that you are in a position to have to make the choice. Give me a shout if you have any questions. Fly safe and best to you during your flight training!

-Jim

James,
I've owned 3 factory planes and loved them all, especially my Arrow which I sold to purchase my RV10 kit. I have flown, though shortly, some of the planes you mentioned, and they all flew well.
As an A&P/IA, maintenance is not a issue for me, but cost is. I wanted a agile aircraft, without the cost. The RV 10 is more that I bargained for in so many ways. It doesn't feel like a truck, and handles like a FERRARI, and burns about the same as my beloved Arrow with considerably more speed.
The best is that I'm an engine "tinkerer" and I have sustantial leeway as to what I can do with my flyer. I'm sure I'd be poo pooed on this very site, if I told of my performance figures, but if money is not such a pressing issue for you, get an RV10 and forget the factory sleds, and especially the cost of operation of them.
The best part is the support from Van's and even this very site.
Good luck,
TT
A&P/IA,EAA Tech Advisor

Like so many others here, my vote is at least get your PPL before you buy. That said, I also would forget the Lance. The 10 or Bonanza are about the best choices out there. I personally know of one of the nicest Bonanzas I have ever seem being up for sale ($140k, I believe.) It is a 305 hp '68 straight tail w/everything, including the finest panel I have ever seen. Mid-time engine and looks/annuals like factory-new. Contact me if this would interest you. Far too rich for my blood! There are many out there. Use your time to look around!

Bob

Slow Down

Some of the worst pilots I know are the ones that buy travelling airplanes as student or very low time private pilots. They are usually the ones that are 150 hour student pilots that go 2 years saying, "all I lack is a checkride for my rating."

They're in such a hurry to go somewhere that they don't take the time to learn to fly. If all you want to do is travel via private airplane, I'd suggest buying a nice Baron or a Cirrus and hiring a pilot to fly you and family - nothing wrong with that.

But, if you want to be a PILOT, you need to dedicate yourself to training first, then puttering around your home area for 100 hours learning a few things - about strange airports, aircraft performance, weather, etc.

Buy or rent a Cessna 172 and learn how to fly first. Then go buy - or build - the airplane of your dreams.

JDRhodes said:

Some of the worst pilots I know are the ones that buy travelling airplanes as student or very low time private pilots. They are usually the ones that are 150 hour student pilots that go 2 years saying, "all I lack is a checkride for my rating."

They're in such a hurry to go somewhere that they don't take the time to learn to fly. If all you want to do is travel via private airplane, I'd suggest buying a nice Baron or a Cirrus and hiring a pilot to fly you and family - nothing wrong with that.

But, if you want to be a PILOT, you need to dedicate yourself to training first, then puttering around you home area for 100 hours learning a few things - about strange airports, aircraft performance, weather, etc.

Buy or rent a Cessna 172 and learn how to fly first. Then go buy - or build - the airplane of your dreams.

Click to expand...

Now that is excellent advice!

After flying 150 hours your idea of the "perfect plane" may very well change. Much better to make the purchase decision then rather than now.

With all due respect......when we are just starting down the aviation path we don't know what we don't know......give the process some time.

Concur with the others about delaying your purchase. Renting is cheaper than owning. Get your ticket then look at buying--that way you'll be in much better position to make the decision on which aircraft is best for your mission, which might change by the time you take your check ride and the "newness" of the experience has worn off. Be absolutely sure that your family is part of that calculus, and by that I mean making sure they intend to fly routinely with you, not what you think they'll do. You might find that you'll fill the other seats only a fraction of the time. If that's the case you'll be better off buying something smaller and renting something larger only when you actually need it. Food for thought....

....And maintenance!

As a pilot, you also need some experience in maintaing an airplane. If you drop off a Turbo Lance at a maintenance shop with the instructions, "it needs an annual," it's going to cost you $15,000 to get it out - every year.

Only experience teaches you what needs to be fixed, and how best, and where, to get maintenance done. On a C-172, that tuition is $1,500 a year. On a turbo charged retract (or, gasp, a twin), it's 10X that.

My initial thought on reading this:

Some point in the future. NTSB report:

4-6 people killed. Aircraft (RV-10 or Bonanza).

Pilot total time: 80 hours.

Nothing personal. It is how I see it.

Ron Lee said:

My initial thought on reading this:

Some point in the future. NTSB report:

4-6 people killed. Aircraft (RV-10 or Bonanza).

Pilot total time: 80 hours.

Nothing personal. It is how I see it.

Click to expand...

Yep. My thoughts too. Don't want to sound negative, but low hours pilot plus high performance aircraft plus long distance flying plus family on board sounds like high risk to me.

rgmwa said:

Yep. My thoughts too. Don't want to sound negative, but low hours pilot plus high performance aircraft plus long distance flying plus family on board sounds like high risk to me.

Click to expand...

It is also the pressure. Pressure to get someplace. Pressure to not let family and friends down.

It is the inability to properly assess risk and know when to say we are not going to get there today.

As mentioned earlier....slow down.

Gentleman,
Thank you for your concern. I manage multiple practices and have law enforcement in my background. I handle stress pretty well. The rental fleet around the area is old and while I am sure its well maintained, I am more concerned about that risk than me getting a ego issue with a owned aircraft. My safety and my families safety will always be priority, which is precisely why I want to buy my aircraft early in training so I am as familiar with it as possible. I also want to buy the aircraft I will want to be flying a year from now, not necessarily the one that would make the best trainer.

The knowledge about the Lance T Tail was invaluable and precisely why I started this thread. I would appreciate more comments like that, or more general comments like slow down, then assumptions I am going to be the next stat. I love my family and my son more than anything else, and I have spent a good deal of money in technology to be able to watch weather, in order to avoid it by cancelling flights or modifying them.

Thanks,
James

The area around Nashville is ripe with plenty of good, well maintained trainers - both rental and "for sale." Our advise is to learn to fly in a typical trainer and THEN buy a travelling airplane - or an RV, since this is an RV forum. You don't need a new, super zoomy, glass cockpit, autopilot airplane to learn to fly in. In fact - you need the opposite. Find a $20,000 172 with one radio and a strong engine, a good instructor, and the desire to learn the basics.

Running a business, having money, and investing in technology doesn't make you imune from poor judgement when you are in an airplane or a situation beyond your experience level. In my experience, having a fast airplane, confidence, and a lot of faith in technology actually increases your risk of poor decision making. I've had this discussion with hundreds of people in the same situation as you are in right now.

James,

I hope you will give the recent posts some serious consideration. What's going on here is stereotyping, which is unfair. I don't actually know you. But just like the other posters, when I read your post, some alarm bells went off. I'm a CFI, and I would not instruct a student in JUST an RV-10. I'd insist on something like a 172 (you're too tall for a 152) to start with, and maybe transition to the faster airplane at the end. But I'd really encourage you to get your PP in the 172, then transition. Here are a few reasons:

You can't learn if I'm constantly taking the controls away from you. (Another CFI once described the process of being an instructor as knowing how far wrong you could let a student go before intervening!). If you learned in a V tail or a 10, I just can't let you make as bad a landing as I know a 172 can tolerate. You would never learn to recover from a bad bounce. You would never see what a really bad stall, or a spin entry, looks like, because I wouldn't allow it in these aircraft which are not approved for spins. (Yes, I know spins are not required for PP. But, so far, I have always demonstrated at least a spin entry for my primary students, because many of them are shocked at what it looks like, and instinctively want to pull back (wrong) on the stick).

I've found students who learn with a gps never really get position awareness without it. Especially true for IFR students (I'm a CFII). Students who learn instruments in a conventional setup transition easily to gps and EFIS. Vice versa is definitely not true. I worry about what will happen to these pilots if the modern avionics should quit.

Finally, what we call "experience" means we've made a screw-up and lived to tell about it. Hopefully this is because we approached risk cautiously, but sometimes it's simply because we were in a slow but strong airplane and had more time and the wing could take more G's to get us out of a situation. While statistics are just that, averages, one which is certainly true is that the fatal accident rate scales with speed. Low speed aircraft like a 172 have a better safety record than higher speed aircraft. (This is why twins' fatal accident rate record is worse, on average, than singles. Speed kills. If you compare twins to high speed singles, the rate is the same.)

When your son hits 16 and wants to learn to drive, would you start him off in a Corvette?

OP reminds me of a pre-solo student pilot training in a G1000 172. I gently gave him several reasons why he might consider switching into a simpler plane with a 6-pack instead, but no amount of convincing with the usual arguments would sway him.

He argued as a successful computer professional, he had above avg intelligence, grew up with computers and was perfectly comfortable and preferred processing data from a computer screen instead of round obsolete gauges!!! Ugh!!! Oh well, you can only try to give advice, and it is up to them to pull the wool, blinders, and lamp shade off their heads!

Needless to say, he was still pre-solo after 30 hours of dual.

I learned from more experienced pilots, the more types of different airplanes you fly, the better of a pilot you become. By exclusively learning and flying in only a singe plane, you actually handicap yourself as a pilot. Indirectly, you could actually be decreasing the safety to your family by insulating yourself experience to only a single plane.

If your only goal is to get your rating as quickly as possible, then becoming intimately familiar with a single plane is the way to go. However, if your goal is to become the better and safer pilot for the long haul, I would want a broader level of experience.

You have gotten a lot of advice from people who probably add up to tens of thousands of hours. How many did you say you have? I can tell you from some my own experience, these guys do care. You say you have time in law enforcement. I don't suppose you have ever seen a low time driver leave parts over half an acre. (The idea of putting your 16 year old in a Corvette was right on!) Regardless of your background, there are no short cuts.

Bob

People call Bonanzas Dr killers. Why? Probably because they were smart, could afford them and wanted to get the right airplane right away. They deal with stress, understand risk, smart, etc........ Many died. Enough to give that airplane that reputation.

I have nowhere near the time many of these guys on here have but I learned on 152s, transitioned up to 172s, went back to J3 Cub and a Kitfox and then my RV. I think I was ready and did fine. It takes time and experience to be able to keep up to airplanes that cover 3 miles per minute. Weather comes up quick. A low time pilot in a high performance plane traveling and having to land in 20 gusting higher crosswinds is not a good recipe. Think you'll avoid that? Don't plan on going anywhere then. Airplanes that cover 2 (or 1) mile per minute are easier to stay ahead of and also are harder to catch trouble in.

Probably best off to rent (or lease) a more basic airplane at first. A 172 still can travel an awful lot faster than a car.

Can you start in a fast ship and survive? I'm sure but if you understand risk then you should stack the odds in your favor and starting in a complex high performance airplane is not doing that.

choice

Forget the Lance especially if its a T tail. The non turbo straight tail Lances are good airplanes but nowhere nice as a Bonanza. So it boils down to the Bonanza or RV10. I know very little about the 10 but the high time engine on that particular 10 tips the scales in favor of the Bonanza.
So if you want to go the Bonanza route heres how to do it. Find several high time instructor pilots in your area who would like to do some traveling at your expense. They should be current in a Bonanza or anything similar. Do all your flying except the solo cross countrys and required solo time with one of the instructors. Take the instructor with you on trips until the instructor is ok with you going on your own. If you pick the right instructors, after you get your private, they may very well just sit there and let you get yourself in pretty big trouble. Then you may hear something like "do you really think this is a good idea and what do you plan to do about it?.
As far as I can see its a buyers market for Bonanzas. Lots of people have started from zero hours in Bonanzas. I had a friend many years ago that did a little bit in a 172, then a early straight tail Bonanza and then a Baron. never had a problem.

You have received some very good advice with this thread, the best of which was to learn in a 140 or a Citabria. Flying a plane of this type will teach you to use your feet, which is something many pilots have never learned. Don't put the cart before the horse. Also, your background and your perception of yourself should not enter into this decision. Make no mistake about it, flying can humble any man. Go rent or buy a 150 or 172 and bang with it for awhile (they are built for it) then transition into a taildragger and learn the basics. You will be a better pilot for it. The bo and the -10 are not trainers. Good luck

Just to play devil's advocate, USAF pilots start out in T6s, transition to T38s, and then fly single seat jets with minimal time. Granted, most have ppl prior to going to flight training and have gone to IFS and get time in diamonds. Also, in UPT there is some intense training (a year of 12 hr days learning the job...) and plenty of other risk mitigation, but there are extremely low time pilots flying over Mach 1 single pilot.

Not the greatest analogy comparing a usaf pilot to a 15 hr civilian, but my point is with the proper training and discipline, it can be done. But will you get the same training and dedicate as much as they do to learning the art and science of flying? when you are a 1,000 hr pilot you will look back and realize how much you didn't know at 500 hours, at 100 hours, at 15 hrs, etc. There is so much that time and experience will teach you.

It can be done. Tread carefully. People don't bend metal when things are going right. And the faster the plane, the faster things go wrong. I wouldn't trade my 172, champ, cub, citabria, or any other small stick and rudder plane I've flown for anything (except more p51 time).

I would recommend getting some tail wheel time for sure no matter what you do so you can really learn stick and rudder. Then, while you are renting, try to get a little time sitting in or flying in the -10 and Bo if you can, talking to their owners, and insurance companies, and picking brains of those who have gone before you (like you are doing) prior to buying.

One thing I learned in my many years of searching for a plane to buy was for every plane I saw and thought would be perfect that got sold before I jumped on it was that the next week or month, another one came available. My desires in what I wanted changed drastically as I got more experience in various aircraft, also. It ended up being a very slow, painful process, but I'm glad I finally got what suited me best, and didn't rush into anything. Ymmv

take your time

Hi James.
I will go with the other. Take your time.
I took my ppl in 2005. Did 150 hre on a 172 ( without GPS and without glass) and a diamond da20. building a rv-7a at the time with an experienced builder. Did the transition with the 7 in 2006 and it when really well. Did 600 hre on the rv-7 ( with night and ifr training and then bought a rv-10 for the family and log 150 hre on it.
I do a lot of cross country to see my parent and brothers.
Would i go directly for the 10 for training.... NO
First, 260 hp is expensive on gas for training. second, you need to learn to fly with a 6 pack. 3rd, you don't want to have too much new things at the same time. I mean you have to concentrate on learning to fly. You don't want do have to make and learn the maintenance at the same time or have to troubleshoot a problem on a homebuilt at your stage or worst, to have to troubleshhot a emergency in flight in a airplane that is unique ( builder can have made some modification that you are not aware) 4 or 5 years ago, one pilot was killed because a unknown valve to him was in a wrong position and didn't wait the builder to know)
I just begin to take my family on IFR crosscountry I am really good at managing stress like you say but a wife and 2 baby on board with single pilot IFR is not always a good thing. When i am tight on time, i prefer to take commercial flight with the family and sleep well than to look at the weather all night.

One of my friend have a twin cessna 340 really well equiped and one day was in bad weather and barely made it. He said that he he was glad and want to fly in these conditions to take experience. I said that the experienced pilot would have stayed on the ground.

Do i love my RV-10. Absolutely, Cheap to maintain compared to certified, excellent cross country machine, fast etc. I will never buy a certified aircraft but i would not do my ppl in a homebuilt .

Also remember if you buy a homebuilt that you have to be compulsive on maintenance and if you have one pourcent of doubt, ask a certified mecanic or the forum.

Fly safe

Lan Vinh Do

I just begin to take my family on IFR crosscountry I am really good at managing stress like you say but a wife and 2 baby on board with single pilot IFR is not always a good thing. When i am tight on time, i prefer to take commercial flight with the family and sleep well than to look at the weather all night.

Managing stress for instance in a work environment, and doing it with your LIFE
on the line in a WX situation are very different...I have experienced both and assure you there is nothing in common. Go out with your CFII instructor and intentionally run into IFR conditions with a 6-pack and no A/P and see how you do...Of course, with the CFII there you won't panic, but ask him
to take you to the brink of uncontrollability... then maybe you will learn what the diff is...

.

Thanks for all of your honest opinions. Its never really easy to read others opinions sometimes or to look on words of caution as someone who is eager, but yeah, I have seen lots of teens in lots of fast vehicle in lots of stages of decomposition, so I get the analogy.

The 10 is amazing, and I might buy kit parts while sticking to something a bit more, 172ish for the time being. If I do get a performance aircraft, it will probably be a Cirrus, as that way I can feel a bit more confident that if something happened to me in flight, my family has a better shot at surviving a landing with its parachute (My wife is super intelligent, 3 degrees and a 4.0 GPA throughout, but just not a multitasker, but I plan on having my instructor try to teach her enough to land whatever I get)

Please do not take any of my replies as trying to shrug off words of wisdom. I am pretty hard headed at times, and no matter what, I will round out my PP in the rental fleet. It was pretty cool learning the VORTEC stuff and being able to figure out positions when my instructor played your lost in unfamiliar airspace last time

I really do thank everyone for their input, and appreciate any future words of wisdom, and if the gentleman with the P51 ever makes it to Nashville, your gas and dinner downtown is on my for a little demo flight I mean, come on, it can't be THAT hard to fly, right right?

Jerry, that is a great idea. I plan on working on my IFR soon, but I am sure he won't mind finding some weather for me.

James

I had a similar debate, RV-10 vs. Bonanza. In the end I went with an older, turbo-normalized, tip tanked A36 Bonanza. And sold the RV-7A for it. Why? Answer is primarily just numbers.

Cost: Bonanza was about 25% cheaper to acquire. In fairness it is a 1976 model vs. RV-10 was new or near new. Obviously if you compare to a new Bonanza this comparison goes out the window.

Speed: Bonanza gets 200KTAS at 17,000 ft, @ 16.5 gph. About 180 at 10,000 ft at same fuel flow.

Useful load: This bonanza has 1640lb useful load. Hard to beat that.

Range: Bonanza carries 120 gallons with the tips, over 1200nm range at altitude.

Seats: Bonanza has 6. RV-10 has 4, but those 4 are more comfortable than the bonanza seats. Never have I sat in a 4 seat airplane with more room than a RV-10.

Avionics: Bonanza loses. Experimental avionics rock.

Fun: The RV-7A was a lot more fun. I suspect the RV-10 would be a more fun plane as well. But I didn't change planes for the fun of it.

I currently own an F-33, an RV-7A, and about finished with my RV-10. As others have discussed, your mission and how you like the way they fly are huge factors.
For certified, the F33 is more nimble and fun to fly than any Piper. Best in turbulence and wx, and most favored by my family is the 6-seat A36. It's stable. but, not as much "fun" to fly VFR.
The RV's offer great handling and cost way less to maintain than certified. However, the lighter weight will be very noticeable in the bumps.
As with most of us, you will go through various aircraft as you develop experience and learn your own preferences.
For building your instrument experience, you don't want or need to be flying around at 160+ knots.....better to do that in the 120 kt Cherokee Archer. You'll know when you're ready to step up.
Bill

BillOrcutt said:

.....better to do that in the 120 kt Cherokee Archer. You'll know when you're ready to step up.
Bill

Click to expand...

That is exactly how I did it. I purchased a Cherokee 180 3 years ago and got my instrument rating in it as well as built a lot of experience.

BTW I happen to have a very nice Cherokee that is about to hit the market in the next month or so!

RVnTN said:

Thanks for all of your honest opinions. Its never really easy to read others opinions sometimes or to look on words of caution as someone who is eager, but yeah, I have seen lots of teens in lots of fast vehicle in lots of stages of decomposition, so I get the analogy.

The 10 is amazing, and I might buy kit parts while sticking to something a bit more, 172ish for the time being. If I do get a performance aircraft, it will probably be a Cirrus, as that way I can feel a bit more confident that if something happened to me in flight, my family has a better shot at surviving a landing with its parachute (My wife is super intelligent, 3 degrees and a 4.0 GPA throughout, but just not a multitasker, but I plan on having my instructor try to teach her enough to land whatever I get)

Please do not take any of my replies as trying to shrug off words of wisdom. I am pretty hard headed at times, and no matter what, I will round out my PP in the rental fleet. It was pretty cool learning the VORTEC stuff and being able to figure out positions when my instructor played your lost in unfamiliar airspace last time

I really do thank everyone for their input, and appreciate any future words of wisdom, and if the gentleman with the P51 ever makes it to Nashville, your gas and dinner downtown is on my for a little demo flight I mean, come on, it can't be THAT hard to fly, right right?

Jerry, that is a great idea. I plan on working on my IFR soon, but I am sure he won't mind finding some weather for me.

James

Click to expand...

It's VORTAC, and a 4.0 GPA does not a pilot or intellegence make. Hard headed and stubborn have no place in aviation, the laws of physics don't give you a pass for being a stubborn, but nice guy. You need to go back and reread all the warnings you seem to shun. As an experienced CFI, if you had demonstrated some of these attitude traits to me in person as your instructor that you portray on here, I'd drop you like a bad habit. Nothing personal, but some experienced guys here have mentioned red flags based on bitter experience, you need to listen.

Details

civengpe said:

That is exactly how I did it. I purchased a Cherokee 180 3 years ago and got my instrument rating in it as well as built a lot of experience.

BTW I happen to have a very nice Cherokee that is about to hit the market in the next month or so!

Click to expand...

Bill,

Can you give me details on your Cherokee 180, pics, etc. I am in a similar position (i.e. I want to get my instrument rating and build time cheaply, while I build the RV-10). I figure I wouldn't be able to get by with any less than 180 HP here in Denver. I've been lurking on Trade-a-plane to find something inexpensive that I could potentially swing by myself or with another pilot friend...