What's new
Van's Air Force

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

10 vs the rest

N8Higgies

Member
Everyone,

I have a situation. I just finished pilot training in Oklahoma. We will be moving to Charleston SC in six months or so where I will be stationed next. I had about 90 hours before I started pilot training, and got about 170 more split evenly between the T-6 and T-1 (Beech 400) in pilot training. As soon as the paperwork goes through, I will have my instrument, commercial, and multi-engine ratings. So total time is about 260 hours or so with 170 hours in complex/retractable gear. My follow on assignment is the C-17, so I'll be getting more complex hours in the future.

I want to buy a nice four place (or larger) airplane that has decent fuel economy, and cruises around 200 mph or so (faster than that is also acceptable). I'd like to have a roomy interior for cross countries, and decent payload for people/baggage.

These are the airplanes I've been interested in: RV-10, all the velocity models, Piper Saratogas, the A36 Bonanza, the Cirrus, and the Diamond. The RV-10 seems like it would be one of the cheapest of the kit builts to insure, maintain, and operate. The velocity might be about the same, but I've never seen one, so I don't know about the interior space. The Saratoga and Bonanza would have the most room, but don't they burn a little more fuel at a little slower pace? The Diamond is definitely a little slow compared to the others, but probably the cheapest to insure, and some of the best visibility-plus it's a stick. Bottom line, I've got a lot of ideas bouncing around in my head and need some direction.

I guess my one main question is this: How did everyone decide on the RV-10? Did you look at any of the ones I mentioned when you were deciding? What are the advantages and disadvantages when compared with the other planes? I realize this is an RV forum, so the opinions are biased, but you all must have had these same questions before making your decision. A little help?

I apologize for the lengthy post, but I've been hoping for my own airplane for a long time, and don't want to regret my decision. Thanks in advance.

Nate
 
Nate,
If you want to see a -10 about 3 to 5 months from flying, come on down and I will give you the tour and give you my thoughts in person. I looked at and even took a demo ride in a Velocity but chose the -10.

I am just SE of KOKC and work on the west side of the field, which may tell you who I currently work for. Ex KC-135 and E-3 driver.
 
First I'd suggest you consider the issues of buying over building.

Then compare what you can find for sale with what you can afford (not probably too much if you are an 0-2 with a family or desire a family).

I'm building because its my dream to do it myself, and I know I couldn't afford to fly a certified GA plane that would content my need for speed, utility, and to tinker.

Like you the Tax payers take care of my general need to fly, now I'm working on taking the family with me and spending time doing a 'project' with the kids is a hopeful use in the future (my boy is three... he's only good for filling rows of holes with rivets :) ... right now! )
 
Building your own is great, but if thats not for you and you can find a well built RV-10 that is equiped how you want it, then go for it.

The next best option is an A36 or V35B Bonanza, but most are probably older than you and when you see the insides of them :eek: and thats under the skins you will be amazed!

here are some pics of a mates A36 restoration http://www.pirep.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8215

If you have an A36 the thing is a great 4 seater plus heaps of gear. A V35B is a great 3 seater and heaps of gear or great for mum (mom for you lot) two kids and heaps of gear.

As for running costs, the RV will flog either, and is 15-20% better on fuel than the Beech for the same TAS. Not sure about the maintaining of a Experimental over there if you are not the builder, here its then to a LAME, but often you can do the work and they inspect and sign out.

Either way......... the RV-10 is the way to go.

Now lets look at purchase price for a near new RV-10 that is how you want it V a near new G36 Bo........:eek: OK you have the option of renting it out, but will you really do that and for twice the money??? No I dont think so.

As for the others in your selection of GA a/c........... :rolleyes: enough said

Cheers from a biased Aussie!

DB:cool:
 
plane

Complex question with many choices. Best is to fly what you might be interested in and see what you like. Choices involve sticks, side controllers and yoke. In that class should add C 210. Biggest issue is how much $$ you want to spend. If all the planes were priced nearly the same, fastest with the most room might be the best. Cirrus and 10 have comparable room, and with long range tanks, 10 will fly longer than Cirrus, but a little slower. The A36 really doesn't have any more room for front seat passengers. The problem is that it's very difficult to compare a RV10 bought new for 200-250k(and less than that if you build it) and a Cirrus at 600k and Bonanza for at least that amount. You need to compare used planes (newest 210 is 22 years old!!) with their unique problems against new 10 to compare correctly. Hard to beat the 10 for combination of speed, range, initial cost and cost of operation, and comfort. Personally the only goodie that the Cirrus has is parachute, but it's about a 400k parachute!!!! Also, check on insurance--your low time, especially GA aircraft time will make many of these planes expensive for you to insure. larry b
 
Why 4 seats?

Everyone thinks they need 4 seats when they buy their first plane, but most guys can count on their fingers the number of times those seats were filled. My first plane was a Cherokee. In the three years I owned it, there was someone in the back exactly twice. And I had two teenagers at the time.

The 10 is a great plane. I wouldn't even put the others you mentioned in the same class with it. But the fact that you're in the service tells me you aren't sitting on bags of money.

You could pick up a used RV6A or RV7A for less than half what you'll pay for any of the planes you mentioned. It will go faster on almost half the fuel, with more payload than most 4 place planes. And it'll be a heck of a lot easier to find than a used RV10.
 
Insurance

Hey Nate -

Insurance is not a factor on any that you mention. All - including the RV - will cost about the same to insure / dollar of coverage. Remember, though, that a $250,000 airplane costs 2.5X as much to insure as a $100,000 airplane! Think $1.50 - $2.00 per $100 of hull value for a rule of thumb insurance guess.

It's cool that as a 260 hour total time pilot with probably less than 100 multi-engine, Uncle Sam's handing you the keys to a C-17! In the civilan world, you'd need 1500 hours and 1000 multi to even be considered as copilot on that Beechjet 400. I imagine the Air Force has had you thinking flight training every waking minute and maybe even dreaming it at night.

Thanks for serving - good luck!
 
BTW my son, Chris Carlson, is a C-17 pilot in Charleston. Good luck on your new assignment. I've owned 5 RV's including a 10. They're all great planes, but I think the 2 seat RV's are a bit ahead of the 10, although designed for a significantly different mission. The specs and flying qualities of the 10 are great. The one criticism I have is that the plane seems a bit fragile. Perhaps it's a result of always trying to wring out the greatest performance from an airframe at the lowest weight. Anyway, the 2 seaters seem to be more solid and great fun to fly. It might be heresy on this forum, but I'm exploring the purchase of a Velocity XL.
 
The one criticism I have is that the plane seems a bit fragile.

Just curious as to what lead you to make that statement? Really looking to see if in hindsight you have some areas of concern (other than the doors which are a known weak spot in the design) or suggestions for us that are still building that we might want to address now rather than later.
 
At one time or another I have had the chance to fly an RV-10 (just a little), Velocity RG, Piper Lance, Debinair (early straight tail Bonanza), and C-210.

The Lance/Saratoga is a great plane, lots of room, very stable but SLOW for the HP. You might look at a Cherokee 6 as they aren't much slower and can haul a ton!

The C-210 is a truck! Very stable, good reputation, etc. but the maintenance costs are getting up there due to age. The C-207 is basically a fixed gear version and might be worth a look. Lots of room and the gear stay down, saving you maintenance costs.

The Debonair is really a nice plane; quiet, fast, stable, good looking etc. (I know someone who has a very nice acro version, +6/-4, available for sale, complete with a 430. ? Contact me off list, if you are interested.) If I were looking to buy a certified 4 place RG, that would be the one I would look at.

Velocity RG's are VERY cool looking airplanes and make great cross country cruisers. I've flown two different ones, one with only 200 HP and one with 330 HP, both are ground hogs. Granted with 330 HP, it does get off the ground better but you aren't going to take either into a 2300' field. Oh, and you also have to carry ballast and move it around when you drop off passengers. After riding in the Velocity my wife asked why we weren't building one. When I pointed out how long the runways we were using she understood.

The RV-10 is the ticket. Fast, stable, can haul a good bit of "stuff" and people, and it is not runway limited like the Velocity.

If I were in the market for a 4 place E-AB plane, it would be the -10 hands down.
 
DA40 is a great plane, unmatched visibility for a 4-seater, stick, low insurance rates and very good low speed handling qualities. You can get G1000 DA40s for about 200k; steam gauge models are all 2003 and earlier and not that much cheaper. Make sure you look at ones with the 18mm main landing gear legs so that it's eligible for the 800kg MGTW increase.

I've never understood why they haven't upgraded to the 200Hp IO-360; the extra 20Hp would do that airplane a lot of good.

Pluses:
* Visibility - outstanding for a 4-seater
* Safety (visibility, glide ratio, 26g cockpit, gentle stall and handling while stalled)
* Low speed handling qualities (compare with a Cirrus!)
* Real stick (good and bad, but you're on VAF, so we'll assume you think this is good)
* Good factory support and dealer network (need a new wingtip? Get it overnight)
* Simple systems = reasonable cost annuals
* Stout landing gear (and no possibility of a gear-up landing a la Bonanza and Mooney)
* Good economy when run LOP (all DA40s are injected)

Minuses:
* Reliability / durability of the 3-blade MT prop - get the 2-blade Hartzell
* Speed, particularly without the "speed gear" - Expect 140kt, up to 150 down low. Not exactly RV-10 speed.
* Only really a 2 seat airplane with full tanks (compare to the 182)
* Long wingspan makes turbulence a little more pronounced.
* Rear door is prone to hinge damage after a few years - check it over well.
* Canopy is HOT in the south in the summer
* 40 gal tanks don't offer that much IFR range; 50 gal tanks have reduced CG envelope.
* KAP140 autopilot is flakey, and the much better Garmin autopilot is expensive and only in newer aircraft.

In short, it's a great 4-seater, fast compared to Cessnoids, slow compared to Cirri and RVs. I almost bought a 2004 steam gauge plane in a 50/50 partnership and have done a LOT of research on the DA40; PM if you want more info.

On to the RV part: The -10 is superior to the DA40 in many ways, including speed, payload and hot/high performance. Insurance will be higher and you either have to build one or buy one someone else built and like / put up with the choices they made.

If you just want to fly a IFR 4-seater, I suggest getting a DA40. If you want to build and then fly, build a -10. I highly suggest renting one for a bit to get checked out and take the airplane on a couple of trips - you'll learn a lot about whether you like it or not. DA40 would not work well for some of my regular pax (size, getting in/out of the seats) and I didn't realize this until I went flying with them.

TODR
 
The great thing about this forum is that there is usually someone out there who has significant experience dealing with a design problem. I'm an aeronautical engineer by education, not profession, so others are better able to judge. I think that the 10 has 2-3 design issues, which have been discussed at length, and the factory has been slow to address - perhaps it's the legal climate we live in. They are the nose gear, doors, and possibly the central tunnel/fuel lines. The door design is the most serious - I always felt like I was going to fall out of the airplane if I leaned on the doors in flight. If I were to build a 10, I would add a second door latching mechanism, possibly from below, similar to the Socata TB 20/21.
 
For the 200K I am able to spend on my hobby the RV-10 was my first choice. I will get a 200mph, 4 person, x-country plane with a new engine, new airframe, air conditioning, and new avionics. If I went with a certified plane, for the money I would be flying something very used. Also the ability to do my own maintenance, annuals and upgrades was the final plus.
 
If the 10 were a 'certified' aircraft then it's very possible the doors would have worked from jump street.

EXPERIMENTAL is NOT for everyone.

And that is what is so good about E-AB aircraft, you can do just that.
 
I struggled with the same question. Build or buy. I even went to a class and built the Vans practice kit. I planned to build a RV10. To build a IFR equipped RV10 would take 3-5 years and $175000 -$225000.
I want to fly now and so does my wife. I owned a 1980 Mooney M20k with the 305 Rocket conversion from 1994 to 2003 and really miss the freedom.
The current economic situation has brought down the cost of used planes by 20% -25%. I currently have a 1991 Mooney TLS Bravo under contract for $146000. I am going through the prebuy and final negotiation process now and hope to have it home by the end of the month. It is not a new plane, it will need paint and interior work soon. Every decision is some kind of compromise.
I live in the west and can see 2 14,000' mountains (Pikes peak and Mt Evans) from where I stand and a turbocharged engine is a real plus. Van seems very against the idea of a turbo IO540 in his planes.
For none of those above to suggest a Mooney surprises me. They are by far the fastest AND most efficient production plane available. They are available with a wide variety of engines from 200 HP Lycoming four to 305 HP turbo sixes.
Problem is I really wanted to build. It looks like a RV3 is in my future as soon as I recover from buying the Mooney.
Good luck in choosing which way to go.
Randy Brown.
 
this is a great website to help you make decisions. Experimentals aren't for everyone, especially if you compare the "fly now" vs build route. I've written about the RV-10 multiple times, and I will repeat a little of it here. I have over 6000 hours, all but 400 of it in General aviation piston airplanes. We've been fortunate to own a C-182 and S-35 Bonanza for a number of years, as well as an RV-10 for a couple of years and over 500 hours of flying. I have yet to find any GA piston airplane that has all of the characteristics of the RV-10. It truly is a 4 place (4 adults) airplane, has no adverse flight characteristics that I discovered, and the passengers seem to love it, too, as they have lots of room and great views. It doesn't need turbocharging. We routinely flew it at 16k'-18k', and once even came out of Vail Colorado and went straight to 18K' (density altitude was close to 20K') with Center asking us if we could accept FL240! We had to decline as I only had canulas on board, but boy I sure wanted to try it. 90% of our flying was off of grass strips, and to some one else's comments, the only weak point I saw was the outside wheel fairing attach piece, but of course there's an aftermarket fix for that, too.
As for the doors, well they stayed shut if we closed them before we took off. :) We always called heading check and doors locked before the power was advanced on the runway.
As for the other comment about the seats never being full, that's mostly accurate unless you have kids or grandkids, but even with the empty seats, it is a REALLY nice riding airplane. We miss ours so much that we've started another one. We really regret having sold it, but when you are between jobs you really dont know that until after the fact.
There's lot's of choices out there. That's what makes the world go around. I'm one of the believers that nothing compares to the 10. I'm SO glad it's not certified, or we'd be paying a whole lot more for it.

Vic
 
this is a great website to help you make decisions. Experimentals aren't for everyone, especially if you compare the "fly now" vs build route. I've written about the RV-10 multiple times, and I will repeat a little of it here. I have over 6000 hours, all but 400 of it in General aviation piston airplanes. We've been fortunate to own a C-182 and S-35 Bonanza for a number of years, as well as an RV-10 for a couple of years and over 500 hours of flying. I have yet to find any GA piston airplane that has all of the characteristics of the RV-10. It truly is a 4 place (4 adults) airplane, has no adverse flight characteristics that I discovered, and the passengers seem to love it, too, as they have lots of room and great views....

Vic

Hey Vic,

As an rv-10 repeat offender, what changes will you make in #2. Inquiring minds want to know.

ajay
 
Thanks for the responses

I don't know if hearing all this info is helping me decide or just making me wish I could buy one of each of these airplanes. I have checked with a few insurance companies, and it seems like the 10, Saratoga, and A36 would all cost about the same for me. The velocity would be a bit more than those. And I think I may have convinced myself I can't quite afford a new Cirrus/Diamond. I have thought a little about the Mooney, but have also heard it's a little cramped for a 4 seater. Too many choices out there I guess. I'll keep everyone posted if I ever make up my mind.

Nate
 
re: call me

Nate:
I assume you're at Tinker?
Give me a call,if you'd like to look at an RV10 under construction. I'm only 6 miles SE of Tinker on Choctaw Rd.
I'm at Twin Lakes airport, & building in a 10 in my hanger. I've got the wings & tail done, & working on the fuselage.
hm (405) 799-6049 cell (405)417-6077

Marshall
 
For none of those above to suggest a Mooney surprises me. They are by far the fastest AND most efficient production plane available. They are available with a wide variety of engines from 200 HP Lycoming four to 305 HP turbo sixes.
Problem is I really wanted to build. It looks like a RV3 is in my future as soon as I recover from buying the Mooney.
Good point. The Mooney is a good IFR traveling machine, fast, efficient particularly if you have the O-360 versions (M20J). Turbo versions and the M20R (Ovation) work well in the 12k to 15k levels and the turbos up higher.

Haven't flown any Mooney, but from what I understand, the low speed handling qualities aren't up to the -10, more like the Cirrus and fit and finish isn't the best. Plus, RG airplanes introduce their own set of problems.

So, a good go-fast airplane, but maybe not a good "around the patch" airplane.

TODR
 
Regarding the questions of what changes I will make, I'm not contemplating a lot right now. Most are cosmetic (such as putting a thin fiberglass tape around the windows to prevent the crack line from showing), use the wheel fairing attach rods I mentioned earlier..etc.
I also will work on making the front seats more easily removable without bumping into the flap cover. I will use a speed controller on the trim right from the start, as it appeared to be too sensitive in cruise. Yes, I already did the electric rudder trim. :). I've done that on my previous 10 and on my current 7A and really like it.
For landing lights I had the Van's wing tip lights wig/wag and then had one duckworks leading edge light in the left wing. Now that HID's can be made to wig wag, I will put 2 leading edge HID's and forego the wing tip lights. Living on a grass strip requires lots of light for these aging eyes. :) are welcome to come by/fly in. I am at GA04, Mallard's Landing, and usually there on the week ends, but do PM or call ahead to be sure.

Vic
 
Try before you buy

I don't know if hearing all this info is helping me decide

Just one little suggestion, You really need to try a 2-seat RV. It does not fly like any of the others. ;).
An old airframe but also on your list may be a well kept Piper Camanche.
Good range, landing, and takeoff performance with speed, room and load capacity. It is not an RV 10 though :p

Seriuosly as they say, everything of an aircraft's mission and capability is a trade-off. With an older Beach or Cessna you will probably be spending money on maintenance over time rather than initial price. On a Cirrus or Cessna 400, you will be spending money on the initial but don't think there will not be complex maintenance issues with the new plastics, even if the gear does not tuck-up-under. So narrow down your mission and budget to what you think you want. Then bum a ride for gas and you will start to get an idea of capabilities. It's tranportation with wings, how could you go wrong?
 
On a Cirrus or Cessna 400, you will be spending money on the initial but don't think there will not be complex maintenance issues with the new plastics, even if the gear does not tuck-up-under.
With the CT, we have to use an A&P for some of the maintenance work (we are allowed to do some ourselves, but not all). We go to a Cirrus shop on our home field when we need work done there (e.g., ADs) since (a) that's where several other CT owners go and (b) they do good work repairing composites.

I asked one of the mechanics about what typical annuals cost on Cirri. He replied something to the effect that well-maintained, hangared airplanes got out for about $6k, but "problem children" can easily go to $10k.

Composite does not always mean cheap.

TODR
 
6K!?

$6,000 for an annual on a hangared, well maintained single non-turbo engine fixed gear 4 seater?!!! Wow! really?

Annual for the Taylorcraft cost a handful of peanuts and a cold Coke - plus 4 qts of oil - last time. The RV's even better because you don't have to buy the IA a Coke! Love E-AB.

Go rent a Cirrus - it's a bargin.
 
Yes, I already did the electric rudder trim. :). I've done that on my previous 10 and on my current 7A and really like it.

Vic

Vic, still using a piece of hinge for the tab, or a inset tab in the rudder???

Been a long time since your original writeup on this, in this thread, anything new to add???
 
Last edited:
Trim tab

Yes, still using the length of piano hinge. Over 600 hours behind this configuration on 2 airplanes, and I haven't discovered any problems. I've checked it at all speeds up to Vne. What I've noticed that I like is that it really isn't overpowering like some of the certified airplanes I've flown. A C-182, Piper Saratoga, etc, really take a lot of rudder on take off if not trimmed properly. The trim setting on the RV isn't really noticeable until after you take your feet off of the rudder pedals and engage the autopilot. Then I use it to center the "ball." And you really don't have to look at the ball---just look at the wings and make sure they are level. And descending from the teens is really nice to not have to hold left rudder all the way down.

Vic
 
If you want a certified?

Buy a Comanche :D

I love that plane - but not for all the right reasons. It's a complex mess with hard to find parts but boy does it fly nice and reminds me of a p-51 (the wings at least).

M.
 
Comanche

It is a great plane (of course I am not biased by having a PA24-250 - not much).
If you find one in decent shape and can live with 155 - 160kt (True) and are willing to do the maintenance under supervision - they aren't too expensive to maintain. It is a solid 3 person plane with full fuel - or 4 person with 60 gallons.
But - and it is a big one - they were last made in 1970 and landing gear parts and other specialty parts are becoming hard to find.

The RV 10 has more internal room, pretty close to equal load with the same fuel, cruises slightly faster while not being a retractable gear, is more stable in pitch, controls are more responsive, not quite as much range (about 250 nm less) and is a completely new plane that I can find or make parts for. Hence the new RV 10 kit (everything except the finish kit) sitting in my hangar waiting for me to start working on it!

As part of the process when I was selecting the RV10, I built a spreadsheet comparing various planes based on the one Robin has on his website. It compared the various attributes of the RV10, Comanche 250, SA Ravin 500, Bonanza A36, Cirrus SR22, Cessna 182, and Glastar Sportsman. The RV10 was at least equal in most areas and at the top in fuel econmy, power loading and rate of climb - and a close second to the Glastar in take off and landing roll! The Mooney wasn't on it as they are just a little too small for me (6'3" and 210) but they definitely could be for others. Just can't figure out how to attach the spreadsheet.

My 2 cents - if that.
Bill
 
Last edited:
Build a Comanche!

Buy a Comanche :D

I love that plane - but not for all the right reasons. It's a complex mess with hard to find parts but boy does it fly nice and reminds me of a p-51 (the wings at least).

M.
Every thing they have said about a Comanche is true, they really are nice flying airplanes!

Now you can build one yourself. Check out Ravin Aircraft.
 
Experimental/Certified

It's hard to put an exact dollar figure on the cost difference in ownership of a brand new experimental aircraft and any certified airplane, but it's significant...very significant. That cost differential is the reason I will never ever own another certified airplane. My RV is a brand new airplane (relative to the 1965 and 1979 certified airplanes I owned) and I am the repairman. No one else on earth knows my plane as well as i do. To me, that is a big advancement on safety and maintenance issues.If you are able to get over that hurdle (and it's a big and costly one), you can begin to compare all the niceties of model and type...jmho
 
Toss Up

I've been tossing up the 9/10 and the Velo for as long as the 10 was a whispered rumor. I probably have at least 5 copies of the 'info' dvd's of each manufacture that I've bought over the years. I've almost completed the emp of a 9 and started the bulkheads of a Cozy Mk IV). The only plane I've ridden in is a Velo. My wife fell in love after that ride and I wasn't far behind.

The plane was very stable, stalls didn't really happen (mostly just a nose bob) and it was roomy. I talked to the Van's staff about the stall on a 9 and 10 and learned they were identical. One of the staff told me that if you're in a 9 and close you're eyes, its' the same in a 10. Finally I saw a video on the stall in a 9 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um5agZ3Bw5s ). It looks the same as a Velo so that's pretty much a wash. I even traded emails with Pete Howell who was piloting the video and he said you could do turns etc through a stall - again just like the Velo.

The RV can land slower and takeoff sooner. While I wouldn't necessarily call an RV a rough field capable aircraft reasonable grass is not a big deal. You'll probably only land a Velo on grass once since getting off may be the real problem.

The only biggie for me is if I had to put down on rough terrain I'd much prefer a Velo. Having worked with composites I know how strong they can be. Having worked with metal I know that's not it's forte. Ok there is a second biggie that I consider - room for golf clubs (puts the advantage to the 10 and Velo).

The bang for the buck is with the 9 or 10 for me - still there's something about the Velo that makes me build comparison spreadsheets, think & re-think. They also have partial kits.

I've never had the chance to ride in a 9 or 10 (or any RV for that matter) so I don't know if it compares to the 'rocket on rails' feel of the Velo.

It's not an easy decision. I've been tossing for years. Each aircraft would be an awesome addition to any ramp.

Bob
 
I've never had the chance to ride in a 9 or 10 (or any RV for that matter) so I don't know if it compares to the 'rocket on rails' feel of the Velo.

Bob

HMMMM----------

Seems that needs to change.

Knowing a little about the folks on this forum, I suspect that an offer or two just might be in the works.


But, be warned, they dont call it the $50,000 free ride for nothing:D
 
It took me a bit to realzie "Velo" = "Velocity"

Also...
...
The only biggie for me is if I had to put down on rough terrain I'd much prefer a Velo. Having worked with composites I know how strong they can be. Having worked with metal I know that's not it's forte...
Them's fight'en words Bob.

There is a long running debate which is stronger/safer in an accident. Not that I want to start that debate again.

The real truth of the matter is that with the lower landing speeds of the RV's, there is less landing roll and less energy to dissipate, thus you have a better chance of walking way.

Don't get me wrong the Velocity is a great airplane but they aren't without their vices. Landing and takeoff distances are one big vice, IMHO. They fly good and have GREAT ramp presence.
 
Them's fight'en words Bob.

True enough, though I started building a 9 and still haven't started a Velocity.

I was merely thinking of the Burt Rutan video that I picked up when I got my Cozy plans. Burt or Mike one was standing on what would have been part of composite wing and boucing up and down. Then they did the same thing to a metal wing - not pretty. However, you are correct lower landing speeds = more safety.

For me that also means getting in and out of strips I'd never even consider in a Velo (think Idaho back country). I would certainly finish out the 9 if I could only figure a way to get two and two in it (people and sets of golf clubs).

Yeah, I'd love a ride in 9, I'm afraid a 10 would really spoil me and be very dangerous to my wallet! Heck I could get golf clubs, cooler and the beer in the back!

Bob
 
The only biggie for me is if I had to put down on rough terrain I'd much prefer a Velo. Having worked with composites I know how strong they can be. Having worked with metal I know that's not it's forte.
Ever seen a wrecked Corvette on the highway? Not Pretty!
 
The only biggie for me is if I had to put down on rough terrain I'd much prefer a Velo. Having worked with composites I know how strong they can be. Having worked with metal I know that's not it's forte.
Bob,
Consider this; for comparable impact forces, a metal aircraft will sacrifice itself (absorb impact and deform) for the benefit of the occupants. Fiberglass will resist that deformation instead transferring those impact forces to the occupants.

So your decision should be--do you want to minimize damage to the plane or do you want minimize damage to the occupants?
 
Bob,

Golf is for people who don't fly. :p

So true and that is exactly the case! I'm in a holding pattern for now so golf it is!

Good points all! I just need to get to another 9/10 outing and get the fever again. Heck with all this snow I need a 10 just to get somewhere I can play golf! :D

Bob
 
this started out as a "should I build a RV10 thread" and is morphing into the classic tin can vs surfboard thread...:(
 
Back
Top