RV-10 Emp Kit or Instrument Rating?

I've got these two things on my want list.

Both are going to cost me around $6k. And I will be getting both, eventually...

I'm wondering which you guys would recommend getting first? I really want to get the tail kit... as I'm coming into a slow time of year, and I go nuts when I don't have some sort of project to work on.

But on the other hand, I know the instrument rating will make me a better pilot, as well as allow us to plan trips ahead of time with less worry about having to cancel for a cloudy day.

Thoughts?

NovaBandit said:

I've got these two things on my want list.

Both are going to cost me around $6k. And I will be getting both, eventually...

I'm wondering which you guys would recommend getting first? I really want to get the tail kit... as I'm coming into a slow time of year, and I go nuts when I don't have some sort of project to work on.

But on the other hand, I know the instrument rating will make me a better pilot, as well as allow us to plan trips ahead of time with less worry about having to cancel for a cloudy day.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

You didn't mention how many hours you already have. It seems like the insurance for the RV-10 drops at 300 hours and an IFR rating. Obviously, that is going to vary and with the economy it's hard to tell what the underwriters will do. For example, they didn't require me to take any transition training. I was surprized and I'm still taking the training.

If you put in 10 hours a week building, it will take you approxiamately four years to complete. It's all about money management. The kit is only a third of the cost. The engine will be another third, as well as the avionics if you have a nice IFR panel. Unfortunately, the last two thirds of expense typically hit you the last year.

Then factor in how current do you want to be during the buidling process. It was tough for me in both a time and financial perspective. Especially once I sold my Cherokee (during the wing build). It appears that the budget is tight already. I regret letting my IFR currency lapse. I'm not going to get my IPC until after the RV-10 is flying.

I didn't directly answer your question, just some opinions to help you formulate your own decision. I probably would start the empennage, but only you can answer that question for your situation.

It all depends on whether you can afford the time and money to keep up instrument flying while you are building. There are specific legal currency requirements for IFR over and above VFR, and to feel safe you'll want to go beyond the minimum. Instrument skills are more perishable than VFR skills.

If you are going to have a significant flying hiatus while you build, you are probably better off to get your instrument rating after the build is done. Otherwise a lot of that $6K training will be wasted money.

Bob and Jonathan make excellent points based on experience and logic.

I make my suggestion based on coolness factor Go for for the kit. Building an RV-10 > IFR.

I also think that building can make you a better pilot too. I am much more aware now when I do pre-flights. I'm also much more safety conscientious in general since I started building.

I concur with all. I haven't flown in 2 yrs because I've been focusing what spare time and money I have on building. My plan all along was to get my Instrument after my RV-10 was flying. That has been reinforced by the advent of TAA and the panel I've chosen (G3X, GTN 650, etc). I simply don't want to learn multiple systems (particularly another brand) as I'll have my hands full just becoming proficent on my gear. YMMV....

I guess it never really crossed my mind that I'll be flying less as I'm building... but between time and money being consumed by an RV, that makes sense.

The plane I'd get my instrument rating in now would be either an Archer or a Warrior with steam gauges, and a G430 if I'm lucky. The 10 I'm planning will have the latest glass system... is it really a lot to relearn if I get my IR on steam and then a few years later transition to glass?

just my opinion

I would build first and fly VFR to keep the spirit alive. The build time will be long and once you are done, the instrument rating will give you time to get you familiar with the RV10 and back flying with an instructor on board.

The instrument rating will never be less expensive than it is now. Gas prices will rise as will instructor/checkride rates. Getting back currency/proficiency will be quicker and easier than learning from scratch. Plus, you can use the instrument rating while you are still building (assuming you can rent or already own a plane).

Build

If you are truly determined to build in the near future, then consider the following:
- You can save money getting IFR ticket in your own plane.
- Getting an IFR ticket knowing that you won't use it (much) for several years during the build or subsequent break-in doesn't make sense as there will be significant loss of proficiency.

From reading in the forum, I followed a similar pattern of many builders. I flew regularly during the early build years, but it faded to zero as I got heads down in the latter stages of the build when expenses are higher and the prospect of finishing becomes comprehensible.

Another Plan

Yes, instrument skills are perishable. I fly pretty much every x-country on an IFR flight plan, and still take an hour or two under the hood about every two months. The reality is that very little time is actually spent in IMC. On the other hand, you want to be comfortable and confident when you're actually "in it".
Today's IPC is pretty much a full instrument flight test, so taking the training now and then not using it much for a few years is probably not the best way to go. My suggestion is to get out the instrument books and start studying now. You can take practice tests along the way, it won't cost you a dime, it'll make you a better VFR pilot, and it will put you in a better position when you're really ready to start.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP

Build first

Building the airplane will give you something tangible for your time and money. The other option benefits the CFII most. IFR operation is not something to get involved in until you can sustain it.

I got my rating in 1984 in the Archer II that I owned and loved for 22 years. A few years later in the 80's I started flying to work every day in the Los Angeles basin and continued for 15 years until I retired. Many times approaches were down to near minimums, several missed approaches and retries were flown. A few times after the fly decision was made (based on LGB, LAX and ONT data before the local towers opened and provided actual ceiling and visability information) I had to return to the original airport and drive anyway - on those occasions I was late for work. My job demanded that I be there on time so it was not a recreational or casual experience and it was always a relief when in IMC in the morning, it got darker below the plane and I knew I was about to break out into the clear.

The RV-6A that we built is much more difficult to fly IFR than the Archer but my original equipment selection was based on my actual years of IFR in the Archer. I felt confident that my planning was good from both cost and reasonable operation perspectives. I had one NAV radio with a VOR/LOC/GS indicator, a SL-60 (GPS/COM)with a small MAP360 display and that was it - no autopilot. I flew it IFR that way for over a year before I gave in and bought and installed an autopilot (direction and altitude hold) from TruTrak - the pressure relief was awesome. Still I was limited to one Terra NAV radio and indicator. Recently (several years later) I bought a SL-30 and indicator from Aircraft Spruce that I installed, tested and use. Now the approaches are less busy but I am still working on my personal procedures with the reconfigured instrument panel to use the system efficiently (some personal responsibilities prevent me from going to the airport right now which makes it more difficult).

My opinion is the best benefit of getting an instrument rating now would be to get you to trust your instruments if you get caught in IMC. Yes continued VFR into IMC can happen to you. It happened to me in a sustained turn at night off the coast of southern California with less than 200 hours total time and no instrument training. A FAA accident prevention councellor demonstration to our flying club with me blindfolded in a spinning chair a month earlier is all that saved four people that night. The graveyard spiral is very real.

Bob Axsom