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 '97 Bonanza

slaw76

I'm New Here
My first post here, pardon the intrusion with yet another this-vs-that, but I'm in a pickle and seeking an honest advice.

Recently my wife approved our first aircraft budget of $260k. With that, I'm assuming I should be able to get the -10 kit and equip it. I was just about to pull the trigger on the kit but then a random opportunity came along to get a '97 A36 Bonanza with outdated avionics. After limited upgrades and initial maintenance the A36 acquisition should cap at $300k.

The plane will mostly be used for work; we travel two times a week, 1-4 hours at a time for consulting. My wife also rides horses competitively so relies on my delivering her to places (that's probably the reason why she approved the budget :rolleyes:). Putting the thrill of building your own aircraft aside, specially if you have flown a Bonanza, would you go for the new RV-10 and have it "the way you like" or given the opportunity, would you trade it for a used A36? The -10 has a better mpg which is a plus given its mission, maintenance is cheaper specially if done "in house" and the insurance is probably less too. We are scheduled to visit the Van's factory in Feb '20 and get a demo, weather permitted.

I'm still in flight school expected to get my PP license early next year.

Any thoughts or experiences to share greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Fly the 10 go fly one with your wife, add up standard yearly costs to own a Bonanza, take a look at how thick a wallet you have, then decided.

If nothing else, I would never own any spam can simply for the gross cost to maintain it. As a simple example, go price what it would cost to replace the fuel valve for this Bonanza.

Side note, for the mission you describe you must get your IFR ticket regardless of which plane you do.

Carl
 
RV-10

I would choose the RV-10, hands down.

I have owned quite a few GA aircraft over the years, including a Bonanza, and will probably not own another certified aircraft...

For $260k, you will be able to have a really nice RV-10, no matter if you build or buy...
 
Handling, speed, maintenance costs, etc. asside (which all tilt in favor of the -10), I'm 5-11 with broad shoulders and have found that I simply don't fit in a Bonanza.

The issue is the sides curve inwards towards the top and push my shoulders intowards the center. After a long flight, my back is killing me because of the awkward seating position. The -10 is much more comfortable for me for long trips.

One additional bonus for the -10, a friend has a Barret built IO-540 that dyno'ed at over 280 hp. When he built his -10, he added AC, which is a nice option. Because of the extra horse power, he doesn't bother turning off the AC until he is at cruise, which makes for a much more comfortable flight for everyone. (He has also hauled a big block in the baggage compartment for a car he is restoring.)

For the price your CFO has approved, you could buy a really nice -10 and perform any upgrades you feel it needs.

Good luck and welcome to VAF.
 
I've owned two 36 model Bonanzas and I loved both of them. Great planes, easy to land, very durable. I'd own another for sure. My wife won't fly with me in the -8 (although I think she's beginning to soften on that since I haven't killed myself yet), but she loves the Bonanza. She sits in the back with her feet up on the opposite seats and reads her Kindle the whole flight.

I've never flown a -10 so can't comment on that, but given your mission, I'd seriously consider the Bonanza. The "barn doors" in the back make it extremely easy to load and you can easily remove the back seats for hauling a lot of stuff. The plane was originally designed for load hauling and is certified in the utility category. The downside of the Bo is cost of maintenance and the avionics. Even the G-36 models are behind the times with the G-1000 suite since the software is rarely updated by Beech. I love the plane and might own another before it's all said and done.
 
Welcome aboard

Congratulations on the budget approval! You can build a pretty snazzy -10 for that.

I've owned both a Bonanza and a Baron - loved them both. However, it's a pretty easy statement to say that an RV-10 and a Bonanza are in the same ballpark regarding airframe performance. Both are honest four-place aircraft, although the Bonanza has some better utility with the extra space in the back and the "small people seats" (I loved the barn doors). The RV-10 will have better climb and cruise performance, along with improved economy for the same airspeeds.

However, while you can save money with a -10 versus a Bonanza - especially in parts and labor once you start getting into fun things like starter adapters ($5K from Continental) or landing gear main knee bolts ($360 from Beechcraft) - the whole point of E-AB is supposed to be education and recreation, both of which I thoroughly enjoy.

If your main interest is simply owning and operating an RV-10 vs a Bonanza, I wouldn't spend the years building, but rather go buy nicely made and flying RV-10; there are some for sale.

Building an airplane is a huge time and effort commitment - even with a quick-build. If you buy an already made experimental airplane, you can still do all the maintenance yourself and just hire an A&P to do the condition inspection.

BUT, if you want to say you built it yourself, and you're ready for a lifestyle change (seriously), then get after a 10.

I will say that becoming a new pilot and building an airplane all at the same time is taking a big bite of aviation; you should consider joining a local EAA chapter for some support on the adventure.
 
If both planes are sitting on the ramp in front of you, this crowd is going to say go for the RV. Even on the Beech forum you might get the same advice. But if you are talking about a flying Bonanza versus starting from scratch with a kit, that's another whole argument. Conventional wisdom is build a plane because you want to build, not because you want an airplane.
 
If you are spending $300k, and dont even have a lic yet and intend on flying a couple work missions a week. You have a LOT on your plate. Write the cheque and move forward with the bonanza.

You can always upgrade to an rv :D down the road when time frees up. To fly that much for work you need to get a lot of experience and ratings so focus on that and pay the price to hang with the certified kids. Just my opinion.
 
I have a lot of RV-10 experience and in your case I'd recommend the Bonanza. It'll get you flying right away and will be a reliable honest airplane with lots of room and a big baggage door.

If you decide down the line to go RV-10, you can always sell the Bonanza when you're ready.
 
but

Why not just write the check for a flying RV-10?

Then no upgrade is necessary, and the considerable amount of cash that will be required to keep the relic flying won't be wasted...
 
How important is the business travel? I'm not sure what part of the country you live in or where your trips are to, but if the trips are critical then I'd want something with FIKI which would rule an RV-10 out. Otherwise there could potentially be a significant amount of cancellations due to icing conditions. Just food for thought.

Personally I'd suggest getting your certificate and ratings before pulling the trigger on anything.
 
....It'll get you flying right away.......

The OP is still in the process of getting his PPL. Is this really the right first plane for anybody? Personally I would suggest buying or renting a nice 172 for the first couple hundred hours. It will likely take a few years to get the experience to move up to the Bonanza.

I really like Bonanzas but being an MD I figured it best to stay away from a plane dubbed the forked tail doctor killer. :eek: :)
 
Not sure what the maintenance requirements are where you live but your yearly maintenance cost is going to be more reasonable with the 10. BTW there is a very nice RV-10 for sale in the classified here you might want to consider which is well within your budget.
 
I would choose the RV-10, hands down.

I have owned quite a few GA aircraft over the years, including a Bonanza, and will probably not own another certified aircraft...

For $260k, you will be able to have a really nice RV-10, no matter if you build or buy...

A friendly accomplished lifetime aviator without a dog in the fight who has brokered hundreds of aircraft sales said “RV-10”.

Could go into the myriad of reasons but it has to do with the freedom of ownership with an experimental and the superb all around performance of the Van’s.

I asked for the reason as you having said that this is a Van’s forum go to Beechtalk and it’ll be the opposite.

YMMV
 
Last edited:
Suggest you talk to an aviation insurance agent about your ability and cost for insurance with either the RV-10 or Bonanza. As a pilot just passing his PPL, you may find them reluctant to insure you in either high performance aircraft until you have built more PIC time.

You might consider a Grumman Tiger or 172 as your first plane to build time and get you where you want to go, even if it is a little longer trip at the slower speeds.

Regards,
 
As a new VFR pilot, you're going to find the cost of insurance absolutely staggering for a high-performance plane such as the RV-10, nevermind a 6-place retract such as the Bonanza. By all means, check with your insurance agent, but expect requirements to include an instrument rating and significant dual in type.

All of that said, neither plane is a good choice for a fresh PP with zero real world (non-training) experience. Being able to write the check is not the relevant metric. This is very much akin to an aspiring motorcyclist (not yet having passed the basic MSF course) inquiring as to which of two liter+ sportbikes would make a good first purchase.

Also, having to travel for business and deliver the wife to scheduled events are both invitations to get-there-itis that will directly oppose a new pilot's still-developing PIC instincts. Be smart and spend a couple of years acquiring some low-performance initial experience (without any "must fly" pressure) prior to purchasing any sort of high-performance airplane.
 
Depends

The Bonanza will ride smoother and will be faster as the -10 is TAS limited. However, assuming the acquisition cost is the same, the -10 will be less expensive to fly and maintain. Reliability may favor the -10 with its fixed gear and less complicated systems. If I was you and ongoing cost was a concern, I?d buy a flying -10. If cost wasn?t a factor, I?d recommend a twin such as an Aerostar, but hey, I?m a tad partial. :)

A properly equipped and well built -10 is hard to beat. Good luck on your search!

My first post here, pardon the intrusion with yet another this-vs-that, but I'm in a pickle and seeking an honest advice.

Recently my wife approved our first aircraft budget of $260k. With that, I'm assuming I should be able to get the -10 QB and equip it. I was just about to pull the trigger on the kit but then a random opportunity came along to get a '97 A36 Bonanza with outdated avionics. After limited upgrades and initial maintenance the A36 acquisition should cap at $300k.

The plane will mostly be used for work; we travel two times a week, 1-4 hours at a time for consulting. My wife also rides horses competitively so relies on my delivering her to places (that's probably the reason why she approved the budget :rolleyes:). Putting the thrill of building your own aircraft aside, specially if you have flown a Bonanza, would you go for the new RV-10 and have it "the way you like" or given the opportunity, would you trade it for a used A36? The -10 has a better mpg which is a plus given its mission, maintenance is cheaper specially if done "in house" and the insurance is probably less too. We are scheduled to visit the Van's factory in Feb '20 and get a demo, weather permitted.

I'm still in flight school expected to get my PP license early next year.

Any thoughts or experiences to share greatly appreciated.
 
Nobody has yet mentioned ride in turbulence or handling qualities when IFR, not to mention that ability to carry small amounts of ice after an inadvertent encounter. Frankly, I don't know, but I'd bet on the more expensive Bonanza.

At one point, IIRC, Van's was advertising the RV-10 as a four place, VFR sport plane -- but hey, I fly my RV-9A IFR but mindful of its limited ability to handle turbulence at normal cruise speed.

And owners make terrible references. When they have a pleasant ownership experience, that will get expressed inappropriately as a whitewash of all the airplane's shortcomings, regardless of the airplane.

Frankly, I'd go with the -10 with a budget for alternative transportation when the weather was beyond the airplane's limitations or my limitations... But right now, you already use alternative transportation.
 
A friendly accomplished lifetime aviator without a dog in the fight who has brokered hundreds of aircraft sales said ?RV-10?.

Could go into the myriad of reasons but it has to do with the freedom of ownership with an experimental and the superb all around performance of the Van?s.

I asked for the reason as you having said that this is a Van?s forum go to Beechtalk and it?ll be the opposite.

YMMV


...and that is why I qualified my statement. Look, it is really hard to get an honest opinion from someone who owns one or the other. Heck, ask someone who owns a Pontiac aztek if it is a good looking car...

Point is, do your research and make the call. All aircraft are a package of compromises; there is no perfect choice. Given your stated budget, you will end up with a nice aircraft either way...

Oh, and I agree with the statement on getting the instrument rating...even if you never use it (but you will)...
 
I enjoy reading these comparison threads, entertaining:)
At the end of the day no two planes are a match. Both these machines have pluses & minuses.
Two primary things come to light if there has to be a comparison, MONEY & MISSION!
Find out yr hourly operating costs first on both machines as there's nothing worse than flying worrying about what it's costing you even if for business.

A newbie 'to be' pilot rarely has to make such a choice. Aviation is a stepping stone story, one step at a time. Building a Vans to many is rewarding BUT there's plenty out there that will languish forever in sheds spread across the planet, the love does and can fade!
It's my opinion and that's all it is is to buy the Bo, learn to drive that with confidence then as you build experience you can revisit the building of an RV10 if indeed it's even practicable to do so in the future.
I love my 8 (mans version:D) I bought it built as I didn't want to toil away for years in my shed, I'd rather fly. I've flown a LOT of diff GA machines right up to Airbus, by far on a personel level the Vans is the best bang for buck but I now fly for pleasure not work.:)
 
Also, having to travel for business and deliver the wife to scheduled events are both invitations to get-there-itis that will directly oppose a new pilot's still-developing PIC instincts. Be smart and spend a couple of years acquiring some low-performance initial experience (without any "must fly" pressure) prior to purchasing any sort of high-performance airplane.

+1

One skill that takes quite a bit of time to develop is good wx decision making. it takes a long time of close watching to get a good feel for reading wx trends. Also takes a lot of real world experience to realize what is flyable and what is not for your aircraft and your skill level; Even with an IFR ticket, possibly more so as it opens up many new ways to get in trouble. A 40 hour PP who NEEDS to make 3 scheduled flights a week is just plain looking for trouble.

Encourage you to do more research in this area and do some soul searching.

Larry
 
Taking on a high performance retractable with a fresh PPL is a big bite. I've owned a Bonanza and loved it but was already instrument rated with 400 hrs or so when I took it on - and even then it took me quite a while to feel like I was ahead of the airplane.

One consideration might be an interim step in terms of performance and complexity - RV 10 fits that bill to some degree (still a fast airplane but less complex without retractable gear), but what about something like a fixed gear Cherokee 6 or a 182? You won't lose money while building time, they're both great IFR platforms/trainers, and still highly functional for your mission. Something to consider.....

P.S. Bonanza annuals/routine maintenance can be quite expensive. Continental big bore motors like to eat cylinders and even common parts can be expensive and hard to find in some cases.

All that said, nothing feels/flies/looks like a Bo - great airplanes all around.
 
Last edited:
Another perspective

Some great points so far but I think many are over exaggerated. I got my complex endorsement and high performance around 80-90 hours. I'm not saying that a bonanza or a -10 isn't "a lot of plane" because it it is but I'm also in disagreement that you need to be a 500+ hour pilot to handle one. Both planes would be great for your mission but as a builder you better be ready to handle the hours in the garage required to build one. If I were you I would without question be looking for a finished -10. I would also be realistic with my abilities and fully except that I need more training than 40 hours and a PPL to fly one while also realizing that 500+ hours is not a needed number either.
 
Go with the A36 but be ready to have a hard time getting insurance. If you do it will be very expensive. Best to get a 172 and an instrument rating.
 
Another option if you are considering building a -10. Buy a flying-7 or -9 with half your budget and use the other half to start building. You will build time in an efficient and fun plane, and get an idea on ongoing costs. As the 10 nears competition, sell the 2 seater to fund the completion. Could do the same with a piper or 172 also.

Just another idea.
 
The OP is apparently from Geneva (I assume Switzerland), so not familiar with insurance requirements there, but here in the States, I?d say you probably can?t get insurance at all on the Bonanza, and may be difficult on the -10 for a brand new pilot. Over here you don?t need any insurance if you don?t want it, but that?s probably not the case in Switzerland. My number one concern for you would be safety. From a safety standpoint for a novice pilot, I think the -10 would be a slim winner due to it?s less complex operating systems. Both airplanes are relatively stable flyers, but you have to be thinking way ahead of the airplane, which is probably more challenging in the bonanza. Being able to write a big check like that is by far the poorest qualifier for the question - should I get this airplane, or that one? If you get either one, I?d suggest getting it ASAP so you can finish your PPL training in it with a qualified instructor.
 
Where is this being offered?

Do a 4 week taxi to take off program and you can have the RV10 of your dreams with new avionics and zero time engine.

I?ve not heard of this being offered for the -10, is this something you can do with a build assist center like Synergy?
 
Don't think it's possible

I’ve not heard of this being offered for the -10, is this something you can do with a build assist center like Synergy?

I am quite sure this is not possible and still meet the legalities of the 51% rule. Synergy quotes 24-26 weeks of build time for a "standard build" RV-10 (using a QB fuselage and wings). This assumes the builder and one technician (so 48-52 person-weeks). There are certain things that can be done on behalf of the builder (without their direct involvement), but I'm not aware of anyone who is promoting (legally speaking) 4 weeks to taxi on an RV-10.

Just for background, my spouse and I were responsible for starting and setting up Synergy Air South (in partnership with the owner of Synergy Air - Eugene). Although we are no longer involved in the business, we are very happy customers building our RV-10.

On our build, it will be closer to 35 weeks, since we did slow build fuselage and wings, plus are adding numerous custom components like air conditioning, full SDS EFII and built in oxygen.
 
Last edited:
I am quite sure this is not possible and still meet the legalities of the 51% rule. Synergy quotes 24-26 weeks of build time for a "standard build" RV-10 (using a QB fuselage and wings). This assumes the builder and one technician (so 48-52 person-weeks). There are certain things that can be done on behalf of the builder (without their direct involvement), but I'm not aware of anyone who is promoting (legally speaking) 4 weeks to taxi on an RV-10.


If you showed up at a build center with a QB kit, a finished empennage and tail cone, and dumped all of the fiberglass finishing/beautification work on the build center or paint shop, a 4-6 week build might be possible. You'd need to use a pre-built panel and would need to follow a scripted build program (we always put the ELT here and locate the antenna there, so you need a 4'6" piece of coax, and...). That assumes 1 experienced helper and maybe another helper part of the time.

But you'd be working your tail off.
 
Newly minted pilot, complex high performance low wing aircraft, business flying twice a week described a very steep learning curve where a single mistake could end very badly. Would suggest buying a certified high wing fixed gear with good performance that has a reputation for being a good IFR platform that has modern avionics and autopilot. Get your instrument rating in that airplane and experience in easy and progressively harder IMC conditions to build experience before you start thinking about using it for business. Single pilot IFR can be hard work in even moderate conditions when you get a clearance change or have to use an alternate even when everything is working right.
Working a full day in a high pressure job and then making a two hour flight in IMC conditions late at night in a single engine airplane with an approach down to your personal minimums may be character building but its not fun if you have to do it on a regular basis. There are better alternatives.
KT
 
Newly minted pilot, complex high performance low wing aircraft, business flying twice a week described a very steep learning curve where a single mistake could end very badly. Would suggest buying a certified high wing fixed gear with good performance that has a reputation for being a good IFR platform that has modern avionics and autopilot. Get your instrument rating in that airplane and experience in easy and progressively harder IMC conditions to build experience before you start thinking about using it for business. Single pilot IFR can be hard work in even moderate conditions when you get a clearance change or have to use an alternate even when everything is working right.
Working a full day in a high pressure job and then making a two hour flight in IMC conditions late at night in a single engine airplane with an approach down to your personal minimums may be character building but its not fun if you have to do it on a regular basis. There are better alternatives.
KT


Good advice. I thought the same but we each must make decisions based on personnel endeavour, sometimes excitement overrides common sense. Depending on location SE at night or even day IMC in icing conditions is a huge risk/challenge for an experienced IFR driver!
 
Thoughts and experiences

The plane will mostly be used for work; we travel two times a week, 1-4 hours at a time for consulting. My wife also rides horses competitively so relies on my delivering her to places (that's probably the reason why she approved the budget :rolleyes:).

* * *

I'm still in flight school expected to get my PP license early next year.

Any thoughts or experiences to share greatly appreciated.

What you're describing is a lot of travel, and much of it would appear to be travel with meaningful deadlines for departures and arrivals.

Unfortunately, something that is not widely known or publicized about small aircraft* is that, compared to basically everything else, they are not a particularly reliable way to travel when there are deadlines. Mechanical issues, pilot incapacity (e.g. a head cold), and especially weather greatly reduce these machines' ability to travel safely on a deadline. Weather is obviously worse some places than others, but just about anywhere has the ability to strand you for several days. Been there, done that.

As others have said, a Bonanza or RV-10 is a lot of airplane, and in the traveling environment you describe both will put a real premium on your piloting skills and your decisionmaking ability. Speaking of premiums, the insurance companies will likely agree with me, and charge you through the roof.

Knowing nothing more about you than what I've read here, but nevertheless being unafraid to offer my opinion (this is the internet after all), I have to agree with what several others have said: it would be a better idea to buy a solid and stolid steed, in the 172 or Cherokee category, in which you could (1) finish up your PPL, (2) immediately continue on to get your instrument rating, and (3) ease into the IFR system slowly in such an aircraft.

I managed the latter, but not the first two. I wish somebody had drilled this advice into me when I was getting started. :)

Good luck!!

[*By "small aircraft" I mean basically anything that's less capable than a turboprop with FIKI. And of course even with (and in part because of) all their capabilities, such aircraft require significant flying skills and training to be operated safely.]
 
Some good advice about getting some decent time in before fooling with high performance aircraft.
With that said, Beech Bonanza's are beautiful flying aircraft, hard to beat other than cost to maintain.
I've owned 2 Bonanza's over the years and the control harmony makes it one of the nicest certified singles out there.
That said RV's are beautiful flying aircraft so when your up to it, either would be a great choice.:)
 
Thank you for sincere and thoughtful responses

First, I want to thank you all for taking the time to reply to my post. You are an amazing community, which is just one of many reasons why we decided to go with the RV-10. Instead of replying to you individually I will sum up and respond below, as there were some overlapping suggestions.

Many of you pointed out that for the missions I enumerated, I should obtain the IFR ticket. That is my intention. I do not plan on serious utilization of a plane before I'm certified and comfortable flying IMC.

Some suggested renting planes like 172 until flying proficiency is reached. This is what I do now - I fly rented planes - and it won't change for a while since the RV build process is long. Owning is a better long term option – given the business write-offs and accessibility - for our missions. A smaller but still relevant factor for me is that flying a plane I know well ought to be easier. Familiarity with the plane's aerodynamic behavior, the instrument panel, the noises it makes all help me focus on the thing that is critical: flying a plane. As an example, in my flight school, we jump between five different Cessnas depending on random factors. Some are fuel-injected, some have electronic panels, some have bigger fuel tanks, and all have instrument gauges laid out differently. It's a chore. One thing is to have a flight instructor sitting next to you assisting as needed, another is flying solo or with passengers in a completely foreign plane - it puts additional load and unnecessary risk.

So why not buy a Cessna? I was considering it, indeed. They have many benefits for beginner pilots, but that's like owning a scooter when you dream of a motorcycle. My first bike (over 10 years ago) was an unconventionally large 1000cc Honda and I love it. It's bigger, fast and took longer to ride with confidence but the affection never faded. I feel that Cessna would be an expensive "summer flick"; I'd be looking for a different aircraft two years later. I may as well keep renting Cessnas until gained piloting proficiency.

A great advise from many was not to subject oneself to the pressures of schedules, specially for smaller airplanes, regardless if IFR ticket is obtained. I couldn't agree more. We started a business some 5 years ago and after sluggish 3 years, it took off. We are fortunate to be able to control most of our schedule these days, including cancellations. My wife's horse riding shows are "hard appointments" so we agreed to treat the -10 as merely a preferred method of transportation to flying commercial or driving, weather permitted.

For the build, I am arranging a full-time assistance from an experienced RV builder but it will still take me months to finish. During that time, I continue to fly rented planes and plan to post build progress here. We are excited! You are all welcome to stop by Geneva, Illinois (not Switzerland) when the project is completed. I always appreciate input from -10 pilots out there.

Thank you again for sincere and thoughtful responses. Happy and safe 2020 to you all!
 
Last edited:
One quick thought... Your reasoning behind NOT buying a Cessna 172 or similar is sound because your mission, as described, would clearly make that aircraft feel "old" pretty quickly.

With that having been said, the PITA factor of renting is far, far bigger than you might imagine. I purchased a basic amateur-built aircraft in 2005 and have never rented since. I am SO happy to no longer be dealing with the rental game. Make a reservation in advance, then discover they double-booked you, or the aircraft is U/S, or the weather is bad for that particular slice of time. Frankly, with rentals you spend far, far too much time NOT flying but rather dealing with the administrative junk.

By contrast, walking out to your own aircraft, knowing its likely going to be in the same state you left it, being able to fly when you want, is hugely liberating. Even when doing your instrument ticket, having your own aircraft means now all you have to juggle is your schedule and that of a freelance CFII. It also means you can often hire a freelance CFII for quite a bit less than the rate posted at the FBO.

In your situation, since you clearly have a well-planned approach to building, owning an aircraft while building would make very good sense. Selling it once the RV is flying won't end up hurting your pocket too badly, especially if you're able to take a business capital deprecation write-off.

For these reasons I would suggest you look at a Warrior or Arrow, a short-body Bo or even a 182 - these are airplanes that will allow you to "test" the definition of your proposed mission for the RV you want to build. Once you've tested that mission your RV build will be better informed and better able to produce an airplane that will meet your long-term goals.

As an example of this last point, my first basic aircraft informed my equipment decisions for my second aircraft. Stuff as simple as "I never ever want to have key-switched ignition again." Stuff as important as "I MUST have mogas capability". And stuff that's really important - creature comfort stuff. Listen very closely to comments from your spouse. It's amazing how often a very small change, or a very small investment in a particular comfort item makes the airplane so much more enjoyable for you both.
 
Chuckle

Building an RV-10 will take MANY months to complete...unless you have an army of volunteers working on it...
 
For the build, I am arranging a full-time assistance from an experienced RV builder
!

Now that I see you?re in the US.....-:)
Make certain you understand the FARs concerning Amateur Built Aircraft, in particular the ?51% rule?. If your ?full-time assistant? is being paid for his help, you may end up with an airplane that the FAA won?t certify. OTOH if the paid help brings a standard kit up to the quick build stage, that?s okay, since the FAA has already approved Vans QB kits as meeting the rule.
 
Perhaps contradictory to popular opinion we are not going with the QB kit to ensure the project is completed on time and legal under the Amateur Built Aircraft category. The first phase of the project is less challenging from the complexity point. Together with my two sons we are going to tackle it with a standard kit, so our work adds up to 51%. We consider the work in-between QB and painting as the most complex and time consuming. I'm guessing many builders loose a lot of time in the middle, perhaps never finish, as progress in that phase can be slow. It's for those parts in the middle that we plan to offload to a more experienced, paid for team. By flipping the project "on its head", we give ourselves about a year from the time the kit arrives until the DAR can work on certifying it.
 
Good luck

Good luck with that time frame...

Some helpful hints though, if you are attempting it:

Make NO modifications, other than the third latch from planearound.com, they will take five times longer than you think.

You better order your engine today, 6-12 months lead time.

You better order your prop, too.

...and don?t forget the avionics, it took me 13 months from the time I ordered until I received the crate.

There are two things that are for certain with an RV-10 build:

It will take longer than you think.

It will cost more than you think.

Good luck.
 
Bonanza/RV10

There are some excellent responses for you. My choice would be the RV, BUT in your case, realistically it will be quite some time before you will have enough experience to commute safely in either of these aircraft. Aside from other considerations, the big advantage of the RV series, is the fixed gear, which is a substantial consideration, insurance being just one.
The best Dollar value for you at this point is to spend a substantial amount on AVGAS.

Good luck, Brent Owen
 
Perhaps contradictory to popular opinion we are not going with the QB kit to ensure the project is completed on time and legal under the Amateur Built Aircraft category. The first phase of the project is less challenging from the complexity point. Together with my two sons we are going to tackle it with a standard kit, so our work adds up to 51%. We consider the work in-between QB and painting as the most complex and time consuming. I'm guessing many builders loose a lot of time in the middle, perhaps never finish, as progress in that phase can be slow. It's for those parts in the middle that we plan to offload to a more experienced, paid for team. By flipping the project "on its head", we give ourselves about a year from the time the kit arrives until the DAR can work on certifying it.
Good luck!

Be sure to look over the FAA check list that lists all the tasks that you, as the builder must complete to meet the 51% rule.

It has been some time since I have reviewed the list but it was pretty explicit. For example, if all you did was rivet the structure together and nothing else, you might be challenged to meet the 51% rule.
 
As others have said, I would strongly suggest buying the plane you want for your mission now.

You are a new pilot and will need an airplane for training and flying. Building an airplane takes 3-10+ years for most of us who have a day job and aren't professional mechanics. So you won't have an RV-10 that you've built yourself anytime soon. If you'd like to build a plane, go to the EAA workshop on building a Vans RV and try pounding some rivets. If you like that, buy the empennage kit and some tools for < $5k and build that. If you are still having fun, buy the wing kit and flush out your tools for < $15k and enjoy the build. Several years from now, you'll need to put out the big money for the engine and avionics, and can sell your existing plane if necessary to fund that purchase.

In the meantime, decide whether to buy the RV-10 or an A36 or something else like a Cessna 182 to finish your PPL, earn your instrument rating, and start flying for fun and business. Folks have done their PPL in all three of these planes, but many of us are tough on our planes as we are learning, and a trainer is more forgiving and cheaper to repair.

I used to own an A36 Bonanza until I lost it in a divorce. It was the best plane I've ever flown. I have three kids, so a 4-seater was not an option for a family airplane. I loved the big back doors for loading, and it could carry a great deal and fly a long distance in comfort. I had a 1977 Bonanza, which was just as good as the 1990s models in my opinion except raising my gear took an extra second, and much better useful load and upgradability than the current G36. You can buy an excellent pre 1980 A36 for under $200k. Watch Beechtalk ads for a while.

Now I'm building an RV-7A with my oldest son. We've learned a ton and had a lot of fun. It will be fun flying with him, but it is not a family airplane. I will save money on maintaining the plane myself, but it is time consuming.

I am an electrical engineer and would not have been qualified to do significant maintenance on an RV that somebody else built, so I wouldn't have saved much money doing my own work on an RV that I built instead of bought. If you were an A&P with lots of experience, it would be a different story. Given your hefty airplane budget, you can probably afford to take your airplane to the shop anyway.

If money is no object, go for the nice glass panel. I'm putting in an incredible panel on the RV-7A because it is so much cheaper than in the certified world. But you can fly modern IFR very well with an IFR GPS, ADSB in/out, an engine monitor, a decent autopilot, steam gauges, and an iPad mounted on the yoke. There are lots of planes with this setup for under $200k.

Don't expect to be able to fly dependably for business in any single-engine piston plane. You'll need a backup plan to drive or fly commercial if it is cloudy and the freezing level is below your minimum enroute altitude. Without an instrument rating, you will need the backup plan anytime it is cloudy. You also don't know yet what you don't know and will need to be particularly cautious for several hundred hours as you build experience. It's easy to kill yourself and your family in a high performance plane when the plane's abilities exceed your skill. Kennedy is a good example. I scrapped a winter cross-country flight with my kids in the Bonanza one day because of weather, and learned another pilot in a much fancier plane with much less experience died that day on the same route as he picked up ice in the flight levels. His kids were screaming in the background as he was calling ATC. Even if you have a very nice plane now, you'll want to limit your flights for the next few years to those you could safely do in a basic trainer. If you eventually want to fly reliably for business, you'll need plenty of experience to be insurable as you move up to a FIKI twin or a turbine.

If I were in your shoes, I'd buy something that is convenient for training, easy to resell, and will meet 90% of your mission. If four seats is enough, a Cessna 182 is a good candidate. Look at the Cirrus too; I have 30 hours in one and don't like it nearly as much as the Bonanza, but many people do like them. Three years from now, you'll have your instrument rating, several hundred hours of experience, and a much better sense of what your mission is and what aircraft you need for that mission. If your first plane doesn't meet that mission, sell it and buy something higher performance to fly until you finish building your dream RV-10 or decide you need something else.

Best wishes,

David
 
Using rental aircraft in VMC is OK. Using rental aircraft in IMC is fine if you know everyone else that flies it and trust their honesty to report a heavy landing, or report all the myriad of other behaviors that renters get up to. Being intimately familiar with the airplane you are in in IMC is worth a lot when the going gets demanding. I long ago gave up even thinking about using rental aircraft for IFR after a couple of bad experiences. Using an EAB airplane for business brings some other considerations if you are working for a client and being paid for your travel expenses. You might want to look very carefully into what airplane expenses you can legally charge for and whether your insurance policy provides coverage. Not a problem with a certified airplane - need to tread carefully with an EAB.
KT
 
As others have said, I would strongly suggest buying the plane you want for your mission now.

You are a new pilot and will need an airplane for training and flying. Building an airplane takes 3-10+ years for most of us who have a day job and aren't professional mechanics. So you won't have an RV-10 that you've built yourself anytime soon. If you'd like to build a plane, go to the EAA workshop on building a Vans RV and try pounding some rivets. If you like that, buy the empennage kit and some tools for < $5k and build that. If you are still having fun, buy the wing kit and flush out your tools for < $15k and enjoy the build. Several years from now, you'll need to put out the big money for the engine and avionics, and can sell your existing plane if necessary to fund that purchase.

In the meantime, decide whether to buy the RV-10 or an A36 or something else like a Cessna 182 to finish your PPL, earn your instrument rating, and start flying for fun and business. Folks have done their PPL in all three of these planes, but many of us are tough on our planes as we are learning, and a trainer is more forgiving and cheaper to repair.

I used to own an A36 Bonanza until I lost it in a divorce. It was the best plane I've ever flown. I have three kids, so a 4-seater was not an option for a family airplane. I loved the big back doors for loading, and it could carry a great deal and fly a long distance in comfort. I had a 1977 Bonanza, which was just as good as the 1990s models in my opinion except raising my gear took an extra second, and much better useful load and upgradability than the current G36. You can buy an excellent pre 1980 A36 for under $200k. Watch Beechtalk ads for a while.

Now I'm building an RV-7A with my oldest son. We've learned a ton and had a lot of fun. It will be fun flying with him, but it is not a family airplane. I will save money on maintaining the plane myself, but it is time consuming.

I am an electrical engineer and would not have been qualified to do significant maintenance on an RV that somebody else built, so I wouldn't have saved much money doing my own work on an RV that I built instead of bought. If you were an A&P with lots of experience, it would be a different story. Given your hefty airplane budget, you can probably afford to take your airplane to the shop anyway.

If money is no object, go for the nice glass panel. I'm putting in an incredible panel on the RV-7A because it is so much cheaper than in the certified world. But you can fly modern IFR very well with an IFR GPS, ADSB in/out, an engine monitor, a decent autopilot, steam gauges, and an iPad mounted on the yoke. There are lots of planes with this setup for under $200k.

Don't expect to be able to fly dependably for business in any single-engine piston plane. You'll need a backup plan to drive or fly commercial if it is cloudy and the freezing level is below your minimum enroute altitude. Without an instrument rating, you will need the backup plan anytime it is cloudy. You also don't know yet what you don't know and will need to be particularly cautious for several hundred hours as you build experience. It's easy to kill yourself and your family in a high performance plane when the plane's abilities exceed your skill. Kennedy is a good example. I scrapped a winter cross-country flight with my kids in the Bonanza one day because of weather, and learned another pilot in a much fancier plane with much less experience died that day on the same route as he picked up ice in the flight levels. His kids were screaming in the background as he was calling ATC. Even if you have a very nice plane now, you'll want to limit your flights for the next few years to those you could safely do in a basic trainer. If you eventually want to fly reliably for business, you'll need plenty of experience to be insurable as you move up to a FIKI twin or a turbine.

If I were in your shoes, I'd buy something that is convenient for training, easy to resell, and will meet 90% of your mission. If four seats is enough, a Cessna 182 is a good candidate. Look at the Cirrus too; I have 30 hours in one and don't like it nearly as much as the Bonanza, but many people do like them. Three years from now, you'll have your instrument rating, several hundred hours of experience, and a much better sense of what your mission is and what aircraft you need for that mission. If your first plane doesn't meet that mission, sell it and buy something higher performance to fly until you finish building your dream RV-10 or decide you need something else.

Best wishes,

David


Well said and good advise :)
 
Back
Top