The Big Buck Panel RV-10 $

i have seen some impressive RV-10 panels. i am wondering who has spent the most $$$ on their panel. how much do some of you guys have invested these? do you dare speak up? get those planes finished and go flying! see you in the air.

I don't know who's spent the most, but suffice to say that Ray's panel (while a very nice example) isn't close. I know that us along with our colleagues at Aerotronics and Avionics Systems have all done RV-10 panels that cost well north of $100K - and done a number of them to boot!

That being said, it's certainly not what I'd call typical. Ray's setup of those G3X's pretty much represents from a cost standtpoint what is happening to the "new normal" of RV-10 panel configurations and avionics whether it be AFS/Garmin/GRT/Dynon. Those folks are typicallty ending up spending somewhere from $35K-$55K. For that price you can end up with one heck of a nice panel with lots of functionality!

Just my 2 cents as usual....

Cheers,
Stein

It sounds like you are being a bit critical of those who don't follow Van's 'keep it simple' philosophy. (Maybe not, it's always hard to tell tone from an Internet posting.) I understand and respect Van's view but I am not Van and my mission, both in building this aircraft and in flying it once completed, vary from what he designed for. Equipment-wise, I am going all-out; I feel that instruments, like fuel, are useless if they are not in the aircraft. On the other hand, I am staying away from structural modifications and keeping a close eye on weight and balance. I'm not planning an ostentatious interior; something midway from a bare interior should do for me.

My 900X panel will be in the $100k ballpark. That includes pre-wired harnesses for the whole aircraft. Along with the Garmin system is a dual VP-200, built-in O2 EDSIP system, air conditioning, Sorcerer AP, Dynon backup and support for dual Lightspeed ignitions. I've also made some difficult demands, like CPC connections behind the panel and at the wing roots, plus CPCs for the firewall that are rated for the engine compartment environment.

Avionics, especially for an IFR capable panel, are not something I feel comfortable tackling myself, though I probably could - for a substantial dollar savings at the cost of probably years more work. I think I'm getting a bargain from Aerotronics, especially as I know now how well they continue to support their customers. I'm having a blast working with them and don't regret my choices a bit.

Mine will be pretty similar to the photograph and slightly more capable.

I agree they're expensive, but the mission for the RV-10 is completely different from the typical yank-and-bank RV. The folks building them are building them for cross country travel and equipping them as a fast and comfortable cross-country traveler should be. When it's being used for the typical RV-10 trip that the builder is anticipating, you're going to have the speed and range to encounter multiple weather systems on a trip.

One other point, they aren't cheap airplanes to build if you intend on building an all-new airplane. If you haven't looked at the price of a new IO-540-D4A5 lately, it's worth a look. By the time you build a nice VFR panel, you realize the incremental cost to a capable IFR panel isn't that much relative to the cost of the entire airplane.

Building a nice RV-10 has turned out being much more expensive than we projected 4 years ago. The escalating costs for materials/engines have put a serious dent in the ability to build a cheap RV-10.

Phil

G3X

Looks a lot like mine too. I absolutely love it.



I only have one 430W but have the 330(es) and the GTS800

I probably have around 50$ in my panel and I wired everything.

Here is the last drawing I have of mine. I am swapping out the audio panel and 430w for the GTN 650 (or 750 if finances allow).

Phil said:

Building a nice RV-10 has turned out being much more expensive than we projected 4 years ago. The escalating costs for materials/engines have put a serious dent in the ability to build a cheap RV-10.

Click to expand...

A pretty typical RV-10 with a new equipment these days, you can expect to pay about 1/3 on your kits, 1/3 on your engine, and 1/3 on avionics for a total of $140k-$150k.

And then for those with truly demanding requirements, you can add another $20k on engine upgrades, $10k on misc mods, and another $50k on avionics. That would put you well north of $200k.

On the other end, for a basic VFR RV-10, with an used engine and other avionics, you can probably get it airworthy for $100k-$120k.

bob

Gee, with that kind of panel, Garmin stock must have jumped up by a few points?

Yet no back up non-electric gauges?

I am all for a very good and capable panel specially if one plans of flying cross-country/IFR much. I spent a pretty good $$$ on my panel and love it as much as I love the plane and think worth all the $$$ it went into, though nothing like it is being talked about here ($100K) or higher.

Bavafa said:

Yet no back up non-electric gauges?

Click to expand...

That question is probably worthy of a whole thread on it's own. A fair number of RV-10s, especially those of us heavily dependent of electricity, have multiple independent power busses. With the popularity of electronic ignition, it drives a more robust electrical system that the typical SPAM can.

My screens have three independent sources of power. While there is probably a scenario that will take them all out, the odds are highly unlikely.

bob

Not sure i should be posting this on a public forum. I may hold the record for, er umm, the cheapest panel? Do they give such awards? According to my accounting, i spent $14k for all of my avionics, which includes every tool, nut, bolt, wire, ELT, and tons of spare connectors wires and terminals which were never used.

The main boxes on my panel cost:
Skyview (EFIS, EMS): 6434
Radio stack (GMA-240, GTX-327, SL-30, wiring): $6362

I will certainly be tweaking this as i become more familiar with flying it. However, i already have amazing VFR capability that some pro pilots flying for Netjets and AA are just amazed at!

Jae

I think that's pretty close Bob, but still a bit conservative.

I did some basic math earlier today using current pricing and I think you're doing really well to finish under 160K without any modifications and a $35K panel. In a meeting at the second, but I can provide that data a little later.

Yep, no steam gauge gear. I have redundant power sources, busses, and has a backup battery plumbed in as well. So dual power sources, dual batteries, and no vacuum system anywhere in the configuration.

Out of the meeting.

Here is the economy-line model I put together this morning.

It doesn't include many of the common modifications:

It's far from being an all inclusive list and in today's dollars this basic list of components has a new builder looking at a minimum of $160K assuming a $35K panel. You can still add on for tools, batteries, seat belts, electrical system components, etc. I'm sure there are other obvious parts I missed too. So this is very conservative and using current pricing.

Back-up?

If I lose the ALT, I have a main battery, then the iBBS backup for the PFD1, MFD, main ADHRS and main Magnetometer. If I lose the Garmin brains, I have D6 with it's own power source and separate AHRS/Magnetometer. The Jets I fly don't have any vacuum systems. They are all electric back-up.

3 independant power sources.

rleffler said:

My screens have three independent sources of power. While there is probably a scenario that will take them all out, the odds are highly unlikely.

bob

Click to expand...

Bob, How many of these power sources have to pass through the main battery contactor before they get power?

Ivan Kristensen said:

Bob, How many of these power sources have to pass through the main battery contactor before they get power?

Click to expand...

Just one.

Main battery (PC680) - one contactor
Aux Battery (PC680) - another contactor
Internal EFIS Battery - no contactor

If you do it correctly, you can have redundant battery contactors with a cross over. It's not that complex.

An alternative is to install a back-up battery independent of the battery contactor that will run a minimum set of equipment (EFIS, etc.) for an hour-plus so you can get down and get your problems resolved on the ground. That's similar to what Sean is doing and I am too. The cost of a little battery is dirt cheap when you consider the level of redundancy you get and its pure independence from any buss or contactor.

Phil

Phil said:

If you do it correctly, you can have redundant battery contactors with a cross over. It's not that complex.

An alternative is to install a back-up battery independent of the battery contactor that will run a minimum set of equipment (EFIS, etc.) for an hour-plus so you can get down and get your problems resolved on the ground. That's similar to what Sean is doing and I am too. The cost of a little battery is dirt cheap when you consider the level of redundancy you get and its pure independence from any buss or contactor.

Phil

Click to expand...

Bob beat me to it.

What he said.....

I think you guys are going way over board on a very simple NOT ALLWEATHER aircraft that should only be exposed to marginal IFR weather. And that can can be easily done with far less expensive avionics. I see people going up over their head in weather with this stuff.

Don A Pfeiffer said:

I think you guys are going way over board on a very simple NOT ALLWEATHER aircraft that should only be exposed to marginal IFR weather. And that can can be easily done with far less expensive avionics. I see people going up over their head in weather with this stuff.

Click to expand...

Truer words are rarely spoken!! These airplanes should not EVER be exposed to any more that marginal IFR. I have years of experience in multi engine airplanes with two crew cockpits and annual re-currency training and when the weather turns sour and things don't work out the way you expect it can get very busy.

The fact is that single engine, single pilot can become very difficult especially for the inexperienced or for any pilot for that matter who only gets to do it every few months regardless of how much you spend on a glass panel. So stay out of ice and the 200-1/2 approaches.

The point isnt't always what your "need" is as a bare minimum to accomplish a given task. Remember it's all about relative perspective. One could say that you could get by with an old 182 or navion instead of an RV-10. Conversely, the guy looking to purchase a new Cirrus, Bonanza or even 182 sees a comparitively equipped RV-10 at 50% savings as a steal. To the guy struggling to come up with the bucks to scratch build a pietenpol, most any RV builder already looks like he's spending too much money to "get in the air".

The fact is we all have different perspectives, different means, different desires and abilities. I've learned that we should never assume that just because someone has the means and desire to buy a $100k panel doesn't mean they intend to fly it like an Airbus in weather. Sometimes they just want the additional capability, or the certified equipment, or extra convenience, or maybe they jst want it and there is no more justification needed than that.

When you really get down to it, personal planes as a whole a hard to justify anyway....

I would love a P-51. I'll never own one, but I'm happy for those who can. I doubt there is much justification for owning one as a transportation device of any kind, but for some it's no different than us getting an RV. I certainly understand where people are coming from on what you "need" - but what we "need" means different things to different people (I really don't need a Mullicoupe, and it's wholly impractical when compared to an RV, but I just want one)! I get some pretty unique perspectives given what I do on a daily basis so I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here.

My point is that while we do quite a few panels in the $20k range, we've also done many dozens of G900 panels and all of the owners are just airplane guys with different perspectives. Sometimes it's hard too know what a person's perspective is, but if you can look at things in that way, it doesn't seem so crazy.

Just my 2 cents as usual!

Cherrs,
Stein

I am with Stein with this, if you have the $$$$ and got nothing more important to spend it on, then more power.

But don?t let the equipment give you a false comfort, especially when it comes to hard IFR.

Lastly, regarding the all-electronic equipment, I was set out to install an all-electronic/EIFS system when just heard of a report of an airplane with all electronics had an electric melt down and lost all of it, despite the much redundancy built to it. Not a fan of vacuum but a simple set of gauges (airspeed/altimeter/compass) is very easy to learn and operate with just in case but it will not look nearly as fancy.

I agree with both Don and Stein.

Travleing in my RV-10 is:
There's some serious cargo on that flight and there is nothing wrong with a little redundancy. I (like many RV-10 pilots) am rated for IFR flight, choose to avoid it, and won't challenge it if it's hard IFR. I've been inside enough hard IFR to know it's no place I want to be - especially single pilot. But experience tells me that at some critical points in the life of this airplane, I'm going to get caught in a weather (or equipment failure) situation where I could use added capability. I will have it at my finger tips. The stress levels in the cockpit go down, the family-enjoyment factor of flying goes up, and I'm reducing the risk my wife and kids are exposed to. I'm okay with all of that.

A little planning and design work on the ground can significantly reduce risk at a nominal cost. If it cost an incremental 20K-70K for added redundancy, I'm okay with paying it. While some folks would give their wife away , I wouldn't. I couldn't name a price for my family because there isn't one I'd accept. Not even $70K.

Back to the spreadsheet I put together, if you can find more than 160K to build an RV-10, you can find the extra money to finish a nice panel. For me, if I'm spending that kind of money, I'm not going to cut corners and end up with something less than desirable. I'll find the extra 10-20% to finish off my airplane nicely.

Like I said before, the mission of the RV-10 is completely different from the typical RV. Sometimes I wonder if Van regrets designing airplane because it resonated with a non-traditional crowd and they're using it as a Cirrus, Lancair, or Corvalis would be used. And the builders are typically a separate crowd from the two-seat RV crowd. The RV-10 is the black sheep of Van's family and it'll never make sense to the traditional two-seat crowd. Excluding his bank account, I wonder if that bugs Van, if it caught him by surprise, or if it's something he planned on all along.

Phil

IFR

I don't believe in light, marginal, hard IFR. To me it's IFR or VFR. I have no problem shooting approaches 200, 1/2 single pilot. My job is single pilot in a Citation. Either you are current in the plane or not, you are a captain or you are not. I think the grey area you speak of is when people get surprised. I'll stay out of the icing and thunderstorms but I love IFR and can't find anything wrong with using the RV-10 to do it. Too bad in SLC all we have is mostly icing or thunderstorms.

Agreed. As I build time inside the airplane and get more opportunities to encounter IFR flight with it, I suspect my perspective will morph into the same.

However a lot goes into judging and accepting the risks for each individual 200-1/2 flight. Over flat farm land? Okay. Over trees and hills? maybe not. Over mountains? maybe not. Improving weather or decaying weather?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that my perspective might change to IFR or VFR. But there are still some cases for IFR flight that I just couldn't see myself accepting. One of those is having an engine out with 200ft ceilings over a national forest. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with going 200-1/2, but each flight has its own nuances and some of those nuances (terrain, changing weather, etc) could put it beyond my personal minimums.

Having an IFR GPS with WAAS and a VOR with ILS capability gives the RV-10 all the capability it'll ever achieve. Fancy displays are great, but the two items listed above are the key to ability to do certain things in the IFR system. Beyond that, the RV-10 will not shed ice and will descend if its single engine loses power. Technologically advanced panels are fun to play with but recognition of the plane's limitations are as important as ever for safe, risk-managed IFR flight.

Don A Pfeiffer said:

I think you guys are going way over board on a very simple NOT ALLWEATHER aircraft that should only be exposed to marginal IFR weather. And that can can be easily done with far less expensive avionics. I see people going up over their head in weather with this stuff.

Click to expand...

Another perspective from Stein's (and not completely disagreeing with your point): I could fly most of my flights with the same instruments you'd find in a WWI airplane (ignoring regulations, of course). But I fly the -6A with the BMA EFIS and my workload is greatly reduced. I've simmed with the G1000 ever since it was available in Flight Simulator and know that it will make things even easier. Once I got used to the display on my BMA, I spent less time with my head inside the cockpit than I did when flying a six-pack. Most flights are VMC (my IFR rated friends struggle to find actual IMC) and I have no trouble cruising without constant reference to instruments.

Most of my workload comes at preflight, when I enter my flight plan do instrument checks. But that's on the ground and I can take as much time as I need. In the air, I follow the magenta line and keep an eye out for approaching airspace. I change frequencies by looking it up on the EFIS and doing a button push to select it into the radio or, at worst, by entering it by hand into the radio. If I have to go to paper charts (and, yes, I still carry a current set), my workload actually goes up. The G900X will add weather and traffic (probably ADS-B based) and the VP200s will add systems management.

It's not for everyone, I acknowledge. I know some people are bewildered at the complexity of an EFIS. I'm not one of them; I've been using computerized systems of various sorts for many years and I find the 'glass cockpit' to be entirely natural. But I know it looks extremely daunting to those without a similar background. On the other hand, passengers who have flown with me have marveled at how easy it was to manage a flight even through complex airspace.

My point is that IFR-capable systems are not only useful in IMC; they can be wonderful for everyday flying. I'm not expecting to fly a lot of IMC. Around here we don't get a lot of it but when we do it's full of icing or T-storms.

Flyfalcons said:

Having an IFR GPS with WAAS and a VOR with ILS capability gives the RV-10 all the capability it'll ever achieve. Fancy displays are great, but the two items listed above are the key to ability to do certain things in the IFR system. Beyond that, the RV-10 will not shed ice and will descend if its single engine loses power. Technologically advanced panels are fun to play with but recognition of the plane's limitations are as important as ever for safe, risk-managed IFR flight.

Click to expand...

Amen!!! That said to each his own. Topics like this never really make it anywhere. Guys with the highest defend that and guys with basic defend that. But this statement to me sums it up. Put all the panel you want, feel you need, and can afford. The simple fact after that is that an RV10 no matter what you want it to be is still a piston single without ice protection. After that it's just a matter of how cool of a video game you want to play. Go from the a plane with a G900X down to one with some vacuum gyros and a 430W and in the real world both planes are going to fly in the same conditions and go all the same places. One certainly would be much cooler than the other though no doubt.

In the CJ you have to have a working autopilot to dispatch single pilot. I think having a good autopilot helps out if the workload gets heavy.

Flyfalcons said:

Having an IFR GPS with WAAS and a VOR with ILS capability gives the RV-10 all the capability it'll ever achieve. Fancy displays are great, but the two items listed above are the key to ability to do certain things in the IFR system. Beyond that, the RV-10 will not shed ice and will descend if its single engine loses power.

Click to expand...

Yep, beyond that it's mostly techno gadget fetish. But of course, pilots are far from the only ones afflicted.

Scott DellAngelo said:

After that it's just a matter of how cool of a video game you want to play. Go from the a plane with a G900X down to one with some vacuum gyros and a 430W and in the real world both planes are going to fly in the same conditions and go all the same places. One certainly would be much cooler than the other though no doubt.

Click to expand...

If.............I was to be single engine IFR; flying in IMC conditions over many locations in the mountain west; I do believe that I'd prefer the "synthetic vision" video presentation, over the old methods..., should something go wrong. Of course, with single engine IMC, nothing ever goes wrong...

Better yet, if I was single or dual engine IFR/IMC in areas such as Aspen, Colorado.........I'd still prefer the synthetic vision. The 430W is an improvement over prior methods, but somewhat crude in it's screen presentation compared to other models.

L.Adamson

Something left out here:
I would have been happy to install steam gauges to save a few $$. But after adding up the total costs, including vacuum pumps, engine instruments, etc., I found that the electronic EFIS route (complete with stand alone backup) was less expensive than conventional.

The deal breaker? The nearly $2K Garmin demands for a CDI to go with a 430W. The EFIS doesn't need it.

what is marginal IFR?

Ken

I am with you.... I hate this stupid expression.

IFR = IFR They are flight rules

VFR = VFR another set of flight rules.

IMC is everything opposite VMC and well defined as to what is what.

In IMC just as in VMC you can have varying weather conditions.

This notion of I set my plane up for soft IFR????? Do they mean light IMC? Either way it is IMC and once in it you find it hard to tell when the soft becomes more dense.

Stop all the BOVINE EXCREMENT....you are only kidding yourselves.

Off soap box now........