What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV-10 vs 182

turbo

Well Known Member
i have a friend who is trying to decide between a 10 or 182. he flys a R-44 helo and is ready for a fixed wing rating. he lives on a 2,200 ft grass airpark, salmon river airpark in ct, and is concerned with learning in the 10 and flying off the grass. any advice to him will be helpful. the VAF force at work. he is following the post. mark may well be a future member if he buys a 10. any nice 10's out there? thanks for any help. :D
 
A -10 will do anything a 182 will do.

It just does it faster, higher, and in a shorter distance. :D

-The End
 
Last edited:
A few quick differences (not a full list by FAR)

More Interior space: The 182 is known for being roomy, but the 10 is even better. 48" wide for the front seats vs 42" in the 182.

Faster and more efficient: My buddy has a 2007 182, and he plans for 145kts at 15 GPH. I see most 10 owners planning around 160-165 at 10-11 GPH. That's a huge difference.

Higher full fuel payload (this suprises a lot of 182 owners): The 182 has more load carrying capacity, but the higher fuel burn and bigger fuel tanks give the -10 the advantage. The 10 has a full fuel payload capacity of about 730 lbs (at factory specs) vs 604 lbs for the 182.

The 10 is experimental, so you can run all the latest and greatest avionics goodies. The best you can get in a 182 is a G1000 (which is very good) and you'll pay for it.

The 10 will also be cheaper to purchase for a comparibly equipped 182. Last time I looked, the g1000 182s were going for around $250,000 and a nice 10 can be found for around $200,000.

Maintenance will be much cheaper. By buddy bent the little door that covers the engine heat plug. It's just a flat piece of aluminum with a spring loaded hinge on one side held on by 3 rivets. Cessna's price for a new one? $600. Ouch! I could make one for less than $10 in material.

I'm sure there are more, but I'm on my iPad, and this is getting a bit long!
 
I can compare to a 1963 210 with an IO-520. Not only did we have to pull the power back but we had more weight inside and our takeoffs and landings were shorter. We flew down to Baja, Mexico together and landed on some dirt runways, some soft. The owner of the 210 really wants to build an RV-10 now because of the speed, economy, short field, payload and maintenance costs of the 10. We were much faster with fixed gear so I can only imagine the difference with the 182!
 
The -10 compares quite favorably to the 182 in performance. I regularly cruise at 155-160 KTAS on 10.5 or less GPH, depending on altitude. Higher is generally better. It has been quite a while since I have flown a 182, but I think it will be a good 20 KTAS slower and will probably burn a couple of gallons per hour more. My airplane is heavier than most, so I have to be careful about loading four adults and luggage, but that is because I put in air conditioning, tip tanks, etc. A "stock" RV-10 should be able to hold four adults and a reasonable amount of luggage with full fuel, I believe. A useful load of 1000-1100 pounds is pretty common. A 2200 ft. strip is very comfortable for this airplane. I have operated my airplane on many grass strips. The main issue I watch carefully is, of course, the condition of the strip. The wheelpants are pretty close to the ground, so bumps, tall grass, rocks, etc. are a concern. If I was operating routinely out of grass, I would consider modifying the wheel pants to provide more ground clearance.

The 182 is a really good, solid, load carrying airplane, but I think in most comparisons, the -10 will beat it pretty handily. But then, maybe I am a bit prejudiced!:D
 
No contest.

I have lots of time in both and as good as I thought the Skylanes were back then, there's just no comparison.

Two weeks ago, we had four grown men, around 200 Lbs or better, full tanks on an 85 degree day and literally blasted off, climbed at over 1,000 FPM and were near 170 knots TAS.

Bringing a 182 to meet a -10 is kinda like bringing a knife to a gunfight:)

As usual, if he's anywhere in my neck 'o the woods, he can fly mine left seat.

Best,
 
I was a partner in a well maintained 1976 182 for 25 years before building my RV-10. All around the -10 is a much better airplane, but since I built it I'm of course prejudiced. But here are a few things in the 182's favor:

A good used 182 will cost less than any -10. Of course it's not as new, will need to spend more money annually on maintenance.

182 insurance costs will be less. As I gather he is a student fixed-wing pilot he may find this to be a big deal.

182 is, for most people, easier to exit/enter.

If you carry only 3 hours of fuel (2 hr trip, 1 hr reserve) the 182 can carry more weight.

The 182 has a very wide cg range. I have to be careful in the -10 with a lot of stuff in the baggage area (this is partly due to me being lighter than average and up front).

182 can probably take landing gear abuse better (rough strip) as long as you land on the mains. Nose gear is a weak link.

Summary: if he just wants to fly around locally a used 182 may be a good fit. If you fly extended cross country there's no comparison due to the speed difference. The -10 is also more fun due to the lighter controls and higher rate of climb.
 
182 vs. RV 10

Boy do I love this topic. I first learned to fly in a 182 and 172. I thought they were the most forgiving and fun planes to fly in the world. Little did I know I was grossly misinfromed. The day I took my first test flight July 4, 2010 in my 10 I relized I was wrong. Both are good planes but the 10 is in a class by itself! I plan on growing old with mine.
 
Yep.

...I AM old with mine:D

There's just something about a -10 that I can't quite put my finger on that makes me love it more every time I fly her! I suppose it's a number of characteristics...the mind-blowing acceleration, the visibility..the benign stall, the speed...several factors.

Best,
 
I've flown both off my 2500 foot strip at 7200MSL. On a 8000' day the 10 is off mid-load, zero flaps in right around 1000-1050'. Both skylanes similar load, 20 flaps took about 1400-1500'. Plus, they don't depart earth with near as much authority. The 10 just gets up and leaves.
 
...I AM old with mine:D

There's just something about a -10 that I can't quite put my finger on that makes me love it more every time I fly her! I suppose it's a number of characteristics...the mind-blowing acceleration, the visibility..the benign stall, the speed...several factors.

Best,

Ditto, what Pierre said!
 
OK guys, don't jump on me, I am building a -10.

The big difference between the 10 and a 182, is the 182 is built like a brick ....... house. If you plan on taking off on rough un-improved strips, the 182 is your plane. If you want to use tundra tires, the 182 is your plane. If you intend to haul a lot of stuff, not people, the 182 will hold up better. Let's face it guys, the -10's construction is not close the the 182 in durability.

On the flip side.... If you want to use it as it was intended, for people transportation. Go fast, burn less fuel, go further on full tanks, and best of all, look good when you get there. Then the 10 is your plane!
 
OK guys, don't jump on me, I am building a -10.

The big difference between the 10 and a 182, is the 182 is built like a brick ....... house. If you plan on taking off on rough un-improved strips, the 182 is your plane. If you want to use tundra tires, the 182 is your plane. If you intend to haul a lot of stuff, not people, the 182 will hold up better. Let's face it guys, the -10's construction is not close the the 182 in durability.

On the flip side.... If you want to use it as it was intended, for people transportation. Go fast, burn less fuel, go further on full tanks, and best of all, look good when you get there. Then the 10 is your plane!

No argument with you there, Bill. As I said in my earlier post, the 182 is a good, solid, load carrying airplane. Every airplane is a compromise in one way or another, so figure out your mission, and go for it.
 
The big difference between the 10 and a 182, is the 182 is built like a brick ....... house. If you plan on taking off on rough un-improved strips, the 182 is your plane. If you want to use tundra tires, the 182 is your plane. If you intend to haul a lot of stuff, not people, the 182 will hold up better. Let's face it guys, the -10's construction is not close the the 182 in durability.
Ditto. It just depends what type of flying you will do. Except for 50 in a C150, my first 250 hours were in a C182, flying in and out of a lot of mountain strips. For mountain flying, or if I thought I'd regularly be flying off of anything other than asphalt or really nice grass strips, I'd take the 182 any day. The nosewheel on the 182 is plenty rugged and can easily handle full flaps on landing, despite what Richard Collins used to always write in Flying Magazine. Just need to be taught how to let it down properly. Finally, C182s hold their value pretty well, for good reason, so it might be worth your friend buying one to learn in and then decide later whether or not to buy a RV-10. The price difference alone will pay for much of the cost difference in maintenance, at least for some time.

Now, having said that, once you are off the ground, the 10 probably can't be beat.
 
Last edited:
i have a friend who is trying to decide between a 10 or 182. Mark may well be a future member if he buys a 10. any nice 10's out there? thanks for any help. :D

I'm not advocating that your friend buys either a 182 or an RV10 but I would point out something salient that every other poster has failed to address.

Regardless of theoretical performance differences, the aircraft your friend buys will only be as good as the workmanship that goes into its construction.

If he buys a Cessna he purchases an aircraft that has been manufactured by a company that has been building aircraft for 100 years, a company that currently builds high performance twin engine jets, a company that has built more GA singles than any other in history....in other words, a company that obviously knows a thing or two about aircraft construction and the proper installation of essential systems.

He is also guaranteed that if the Cessna is second hand it has been maintained to reasonable certificated standards, has not been modified whimsically, and has been serviced/repaired using only approved replacement components. All very good. :)

If he buys an RV10 he may well purchase an aircraft that has been built by Bert Crashncrumpel in his backyard shed in Broken Bow, Nebraska. Bert's a nice enough guy but he's not too bright and has virtually zero mechanical aptitude. Bert's never changed the oil in his car and he doesn't know the difference between a conrod and a pushrod. This man will be installing your firewall forward system. Bert also doesn't know the difference between a volt and an amp. This man will also be installing all of your electrical systems. Uh oh. :eek:

And if Bert finds himself financially stretched during construction he may just opt for cheap non-aviation components, or hardware from dubious sources, or second hand parts with no credible history. And this would all be fully legal under the Experimental category.

And Bert, in his naivity, may choose to make serious and potentially dangerous structural modifications to Vans plans during the course of the construction, and again this would be fully legal under the Experimental category.

And if Bert makes serious fabrication errors during construction it will be entirely at his discretion as to whether he repairs the damage, replaces parts or just builds on. Once again, all fully legal under the Experimental category.

And you might think that the RV10 that Bert builds will be finally fully checked out by some competent independent authority for any possible structural/mechanical/electrical shortcomings prior to the issue of a Certificate of Airworthiness. But that is not the case in the Experimental category.

If you buy a new Cessna you won't need to have a purchase inspection done by a maintenance engineer prior to taking delivery. Love them or hate them, they're all the same when new, all built to the same competent, consistent aviation standards. And history has proven that if you treat them well they'll still be solid in 50 years.

But buy an RV10 from Bert and you'd better have a really knowledgeable person extensively check out that aircraft from spinner to rudder and from wingtip to wingtip because the Experimental category is fundamentally uncontrolled and there is consequently an enormous spectrum of build quality... and the lower end of that spectrum is just abysmal. And it's best that your friend is fully cognizant of that fact.
 
Last edited:
He is also guaranteed that if the Cessna is second hand it has been maintained to reasonable certificated standards, has not been modified whimsically, and has been serviced/repaired using only approved replacement components. All very good.
As one who has worked on a hundred "used" skylanes I can say this is (sadly) not always the case. I have seen plenty of scary junk and more than a few "whimsical" mods. A new model one for the better part of a half million is one thing, but these 30-50 year old biddies are rapidly becoming kinda gutshot. Trying to improve them at shop rates can really chip away at you. I know for sure I get a lot greasier doing a skylane Annual than an RV inspection.
 
As one who has worked on a hundred "used" skylanes I can say this is (sadly) not always the case. I have seen plenty of scary junk and more than a few "whimsical" mods. A new model one for the better part of a half million is one thing, but these 30-50 year old biddies are rapidly becoming kinda gutshot. Trying to improve them at shop rates can really chip away at you. I know for sure I get a lot greasier doing a skylane Annual than an RV inspection.

I don't think it's relevant to be comparing "new" aircraft with 50 year old aircraft. All mechanical things become more "spendy" with age....aircraft, cars, and unfortunately human bodies! I think everybody understands that principle ;)

I was just trying to point out that ongoing maintenance in the Experimental category can be just as problematic as the construction process because both can be legally performed by individuals with insufficient knowledge or supervision to ensure a safe outcome. And it can be handy for a prospective purchaser of an Experimental aircraft to fully appreciate this situation.
 
He is also guaranteed that if the Cessna is second hand it has been maintained to reasonable certificated standards, has not been modified whimsically, and has been serviced/repaired using only approved replacement components. All very good. :)

You might be shocked at some of the unapproved mods and "shade tree" maintenance I have seen on certified airplanes. One of the most memorable was the flap drive motor on an older Bonanza that was "tied" into place with safety wire. Apparently because it was too hard to get the bolts in.:eek:
I think the need to get a good pre-purchase inspection by an individual that is very knowledgeable about the particular make and model from a maintenance and airworthiness perspective is no different between certified and AB aircraft when buying pre-owned. I agree that buying a new certified airplane is a different deal.
 
You might be shocked at some of the unapproved mods and "shade tree" maintenance I have seen on certified airplanes. One of the most memorable was the flap drive motor on an older Bonanza that was "tied" into place with safety wire. Apparently because it was too hard to get the bolts in.:eek:
I think the need to get a good pre-purchase inspection by an individual that is very knowledgeable about the particular make and model from a maintenance and airworthiness perspective is no different between certified and AB aircraft when buying pre-owned. I agree that buying a new certified airplane is a different deal.

Gotta agree, I actually hate working on (and refuse in many cases) many old certified aircraft due to the "less than steller" maintenance that gets done, usually by owners that are to cheap to pay for a professional mechanic/shop to do it.
 
Maybe I have been flying RV's for too long now but I recently flew in a friends 182 and all I can say is REALLY? Don't get me wrong it's a nice aircraft for those that have never experienced an RV let alone nearly the entire fleet. As we lined up and wait I was anticipating something close the surge one gets take off mode on an RV, instead we go this 1963 VW beetle roll that slooowly transitioned to being airborne...sort of. As we gradually drove off the runway on our way to FL001 I had to seriously adjust my thinking. On our downwind departure we pass a coastal airport at 2,100 AGL, the same airport I use as my benchmark for departing in my -10 at just under 7,000 AGL. We continue our flight as I try to get my head around the ASI and Fuel Flow that must be defective as the first is just too low and the latter is too high to come close to the efficiency of our RV's. Yes the 182 was comfortable in the way your grandmother's shawl is comfortable. Yes the 182 is more stout and yes I am in complete agreement that all RV designs would have a difficult time surviving a full day on a flight school line and I further agree the Cessna gear designer deserves an special achievement award. That being said I hope to never go back to the certified world as we have so many choices and the performance envelope is so much greater than reasonably priced certified airplanes.
 
Ed,

I have an RV-10 and RV-8A based in Hartford (HFD) and would be willing to give your friend a ride sometime if that will help with the decision.

I believe his airpark has a fairly nice grass strip, with many RVs landing there over the years.

I transitioned from a 172 to the 8A with only 200 total hours with no problem. The rv10 is even easier to fly. There is a very experienced RV instructor that would be willing to work with your friend in Hartford. I just finished my ifr rating with him in the 10.

I did hear however that you can not get insurance for private pilot training in the rv-10, so your friend should verify that he can get coverage if his plan is to do that.

Aaron
 
You might be shocked at some of the unapproved mods and "shade tree" maintenance I have seen on certified airplanes. One of the most memorable was the flap drive motor on an older Bonanza that was "tied" into place with safety wire. Apparently because it was too hard to get the bolts in.:eek:
I think the need to get a good pre-purchase inspection by an individual that is very knowledgeable about the particular make and model from a maintenance and airworthiness perspective is no different between certified and AB aircraft when buying pre-owned. I agree that buying a new certified airplane is a different deal.

Agreed. Buddy of mine bought a used C-185 that passed a prebuy, but after getting it home and really taking a look at it, he wound up reskinning all the control surfaces and completely replacing the vertical stab. He now has a GORGEOUS C-185, but it wasn't what he was planning on when he bought it.
 
Beloved Grandma !

Two complet different airplanes, in my opinion. Just impossible to compare it! Like water and wine. The 182 was one of the best airplanes in it's time, in it's category. Things have changed ! Grandma also have been a very sexy and shiny lady someday! Long, long time ago ... But she is still able to do things modern girls can't do any more, specialy the simplest things. Maybe the 182 will live for ever...;)
 
182

Try getting 5 jumpers in a RV-10 and then get them out at 12500. Not a good comparison. Different missions.
 
No one has mentioned the delicate issue of money. Truth is, I personally cannot understand why anyone would pay $150K for a 182 when you can find - with careful shopping - a perfectly serviceable one for half that price. So for many individuals, the question is, "Is an RV-10 worth twice the purchase price of a 182?"

That's a personal question that only the individual can answer.
 
Back
Top