What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-10 with 600HP... you decide..

Van's plane

Looks like a picture of the company ship to me.

No further comments. ;)
 
I hope Van doesn't see this.

You sure know how to dangle the bait. OMG :eek: That's an..interesting project. What does the "LS" refer to for the engine? LEAD SLED??

Too heavy and too fast, is how I see it. Hit some clear air turb while smoking along well above maneuvering speed and whamo...you're a lawn dart.

Flying is fun. What's the hurry?

I see this as maybe the first shot at a Harmon/F1 approach to an RV10. Cool idea, but not as simple and just bolting on a ton of horsepower. Must respect the airframe limits.

Hey but what do I know. I ain't no injuneer.
 
2-place

the black airplane looked gorgeous -- until i saw the venturi stuck on the front. what's up with that?
 
That's a lot of copper cleco's on the skins... So, does using 1/8" rivets really increase the structural strength, or is he just fooling himself?

PJ
RV-10 #40032
 
Last edited:
A little LS7 history...

The LS7 engine is a GM 7.0 liter engine. Based off of the LS1 and LS6 which were first released in corvette, also the LS1 was found in the Trans Am, Camaro, and GTO.

http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2006/LS7.shtml

I' have a LS1 in my Trans Am, and boy it would be fun to have one on an airplane (but probably not practical). Very solid engine.

In one of the recent Sport Air Mags there was a blue amphibious on the cover that was powered by an LS1 or LS6.

Ryan
 
Closed for Business

If I were Van I'd padlock the doors. This sport is headed down the wrong road.
 
The 7A looks like the Predator Aviation LS powered one in the mags a few years back. Vne in level flight at 2/3rds power. No mention of C of G or empty/ gross weights. Crazy concept. The venturi is a substitute for a vacuum pump (not easy to drive on auto conversions) and probably provides some much needed drag. I see the IVO prop has been replaced by an MT.

This is equally crazy. I see stock engine mount pickup structure here. Sorry to say it is stupid to bolt 600 turboed ponies into this. I would hope the DAR says no way on inspection. This is gonna come apart at altitude. Obviously no more homework done on this than the 7A. I guess they never heard of flutter or whirl mode.

Maybe someone can pick up the airframe cheap and put a suitable engine in it.

Yep, Van won't like either of these! :eek:
 
Last edited:
Having owned a couple LS1 powered vehicles and being an avid drag racer in the past, I hope the LS7 is stronger. Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic engine but anyone I ever knew that ran much boost and was even moderately quick had built bottom ends (not by choice, but after having broken stuff). Not the things you really want to think about in an airplane....

But, to each his own. You could not get me to ride in that thing though.

Scott
RV-9A - N598SD Flying - ~90 hours
 
"80% complete"

Not a single rivet to be found... the entire airframe was held together with clecoes.

I'm no 'expert builder' as the description explains... but I know this airplane is no where near 80% complete!
 
Did you catch the part about this guy is selling the plane to help the "widow" of the owner? Wonder what happened to him? :eek:

Roberta
 
RUN from this project!! There is a story behind this!!!

Chris Opperheim (spelling?) aka Predator aviation contracted with two victims (clients) to build each an RV-10 with a Vesta LS2 engine. Vesta was building these engines and was almost done with them when Predator backed out of the deal. Chris said they decided to go with Lyco's. Vesta returned the money in July. Chris proceeded to act like he was building two RV-10's for the victims. He never told the victims that he got the money back from Vesta. Sometime during the summer, early fall Chris Opperheim "died". He basically vanished with a lot of money. Apparently there is no body or death certificate. He was from South Africa I think. Needless to say these two victims paid Chris for an RV-10 kit, the construction costs and I think either all or some of a Vesta LS2 engine. Apparently the one victim (now the seller of the e-bay plane) got what was left. This has all been told to me from Vesta. I saw some of Chris' design work at Vesta and it is probably good he never finished the planes.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the story Todd. Another one of those shady character aviation stories we've all heard. Sad for the original two owners but maybe a blessing in disguise that they were not finished as intended.
 
Yukon said:
If I were Van I'd padlock the doors. This sport is headed down the wrong road.
Click to expand...

Projects like this strike me the same way. In the 8 years since I started my project (I know, I know) the emphasis has changed from one simple idea:

1. Build a great all around performer for as little as possible


TO

1. Spend every penny you can scrounge
2. Install every gadget made no matter how unnecessary or heavy
3. Pay no mind to the designer's recommendations
4. Use a gigantic overpowered engine to overcome point 2

Something about this Ebay add smells hinky to me. Seems like more of a build for profit deal with some pretty pictures, several being stock manufacturer photos, and very little actual detail. For example, the reduction drive was build by an "expert". Oh, an expert! Is he the same expert that's planning on flying a plane 100 mph over it's Vne??
 
Last edited:
Wow, I just read Tswezy's post about the true story. Nice to know that the Ebay seller got hosed and is now trying to pass the damage along to the next guy. What a bum!!!
 
Well, if a guy was looking for a 10 kit with a zillion clecos I guess this would work. I'd leave the engine in the box, but that's just me.
 
I sent the seller the question of would he be willing to sell the 10 kit seperate from the engine. I think and mentioned this to him that he should be able to sell the engine for more by itself then with the kit.
 
RV10Hopeful,
I don't think this seller knows his ssa from his elbow! The pictures look like staged pictures to get a draw. I would stay far away from this project!!! I don't care how cheap you can get it....Save yourself the agony! Everything is just clecoed together to make it look like something has been done. This project is about 2% done!! Everything is stored four hours away from him. I don't think he knows what is there and what isn't. I don't see any pictures of the "completed" wings or vertcial, horizontal, elevators! The black plane was on the cover of Kitplanes or one of those about 2 or 3 years ago. Buy a kit from Van's or someone else but don't buy this one!
 
I'm afraid Todd is spot on right about this plane and story. Having dealt with this mess myself (as the supplier of avionics for "both" planes) just about everything he said is 100% accurate. I was at one point right in the middle of this mess, but luckily didn't lose much money (but I did lose some).

The sad thing is the other guy is out a TON of money and has little/nothing to show for it. The circumstances surrounding this abortion and it's aftermath are unbelievable, and until my own recent experience losing a HUGE PILE of money because of another terrible debacle (D2A), this was the worst one I'd seen in awhile. How this stuff continues to happen in our industry is beyond me. It's shamefull and unexcuseable.

Regards,
Stein.

RV6, Minneapolis
P.S., I could build a very nice RV10 if I wasn't 'repurchasing' EFIS's & Avionics all over again :)
 
I can venture a guess as to how this continues to happen. It would never happen to this extent with a legit builder involved in building an airplane. It happens because there are too many people with a lot of money who want a nice experimental like the RV-10 and hire someone to build it for them. When you do this, by definition you are already dealing with people (both "builder" and hired gun) who are of questionable character. It is no surprise to me that a number of the people involved would be out to take your money, not build an airplane. It's obvious in this case that this guy selling the plane was sold a pile of BS and seems to actually believe all the performance numbers that he was sold. However, I have absolutely no sympathy for him. When you are willing to cross the line and break all the rules, you deserve what you get. He should be happy it was never finished because it would have probably killed him. The unfortunate thing is that honest people like Stein get sucked into the mess and and are the true victims here.
 
Last edited:
sadams said:
When you are willing to cross the line and break all the rules, you deserve what you get. He should be happy it was never finished because it would have probably killed him.
Click to expand...
Or just too gullible to know the difference!

I don't see this as much different than the Nigerian banking scam, the found money scam, etc, etc., etc.

Unfortuneately, how does the novice tell the difference between between the claims of a predator as opposed to those of a Rocket designer/builder, a Dave Anders, or any one of the other guys out there doing real design analysis and modification, looking at flutter, etc.?

I don't personally feel anyone "deserves" to get screwed, but that doesn't mean I feel particularly sorry for them either! Especially when it appears that they might reverse their roles from being the screwee to the screwer!

Obviously the old adage still applies: "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is" :eek:
 
Totally Nuts

600 HP in front of a RV.....make a nice mall exhibit.

Without a thorough structural analysis, flying it would not be smart.
 
Easy to solve. Either buy through a reputable dealer (Stein, Stark....even ACS), or demand delivery within 30 days of full payment and put it on your credit card. If the goods don't show on day 29, call your card company and report the charge as fradulent. This has happened to me twice where I've been scammed and was able to recoup my losses like this. I was young and stupid but at least one or two neurons were still firing.

Payment in full well in advance if delivery is rarely a good thing. It typically means that either the company is in financial trouble and is playing a shell game (someone will eventually get stuck holding the ball), or you're paying for their R&D. Why would you pay for another companie's R&D? Are you an investor? Do you get stock in the company or profit sharing later on? Ridiculous but people do it.
 
ddurakovich said:
Unfortuneately, how does the novice tell the difference between between the claims of a predator as opposed to those of a Rocket designer/builder, a Dave Anders, or any one of the other guys out there doing real design analysis and modification, looking at flutter, etc.?

:
Click to expand...

Sure there are a lot of people out there, ligit and otherwise, touting their various engines or airframe upgrades. My point is that a true builder is actively involved in building his/her plane. They actively research and evaluate the various options. Through the building process they acquire a base of knowledge that helps them to sort reality from hype. Through Vans, the EAA, and various support networks like the VAF they ask for and recieve a lot of advise about the project. It is not all correct, but it is diverse and not a one man sales pitch. Knowledge is power, and when you are no more involved in the project than writing checks, you are simply a mark waiting to be duped.
 
Last edited:
Again this seller is clueless. From what I learned from Vesta (Who was going to be the engine modifier) was that they were going to put a LS2 in the airplane. The LS2 is rated for about 300HP. I don't know if Predator told them that they were getting an LS7. The LS2 conversion is real and should be at my place with two weeks. I went to NJ and saw the completed conversion three days ago. Jan 2007 Sport Aviation has an article about a Seabee with a Robinson LS6 conversion. The LS7 conversion for the RV-10 is just plain stupid. To heavy, to much power. This seller also said he had a 92" prop. The length of a prop would most likely hit the ground. I doub't there is even a LS7 in the crate. I don't think this seller has a clue about airplanes and I am sure glad I don't fly anywhere around where he lives. I don't feel that sorry for the seller but I think Chris Opperheim should be held responsible. I don't understand why he had to do this. I am sure these suckers were paying him good money!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I sent the 'seller' an email asking why 600hp on an airplane designed for 260hp?...and beyond that if it isn't finished, why try and sell it with a 600hp motor?

His response to me-

Performance, reliability, and cost are the very easy answers. Bonanzas designed for 300 hp are having Turbine prop conversions for darned near a half a million dollars.

My Mooney 235hp has a 325hp ($95,000 conversion) cessna 414 engine.

98% of the time you will be using less than 350hp and your engine will go 5,000hrs without a $50,000 overhall; pull the engine from the plane and put it in your boat and put in a new one for $20,000 (at 5,000 hours, you won't, your granchildren will)
Click to expand...

C'MON!! :rolleyes:
 
C'mon Chad, don't you know a great deal when you see it?
Lessee, 5000 hours times 250 MPH (conservative) will take you one and a quarter MILLION miles!! We know that any Corvette with this engine running at 75% to 100% power will easily go this many miles- I would guess that these power settings in the car would be well over 120 MPH to boot!
Then, you can take this engine and put it in your boat! Do you have this guy's phone number? If you're not going to pounce on a deal like this I sure will! Sure!
 
:D :D :D :D

I'm keeping that number a secret! I'm holding off though...I'm in the midst of designing a Corsair bent wing for the 10, and re-engineering it to a taildragger to accomodate that 92" prop. ;)
 
cjensen said:
:D :D :D :D

I'm keeping that number a secret! I'm holding off though...I'm in the midst of designing a Corsair bent wing for the 10, and re-engineering it to a taildragger to accomodate that 92" prop. ;)
Click to expand...
I'll be watching for that in the RVator.
 
Chad, thanks for getting this guy's response. He is on some goooood drugs. They must have found a new way to plate on rod bearing material with the engine in operation to get that 5000 hour TBO. Who needs PT6s with stats like this!
 
I just don't get why an RV is the airframe of choice for this guy, put a 600HP V-8 on a Lancair IVP, not an RV-10. I could see either a turbo normalized 260 or a IO-580 325HP, but thats as far as I'd go...
 
My dad taught me

My Dad bought into the BD-5 when I was a little kid; he paid good money on deposits. Of course the BD-5 story is as they say .... history. All he had was a desk model on a stand to show for it, in the end. I did not know much about it at as a kid or think about it, but it's a lesson I learned unconsciously. Probably why I am super cautious about experimental kit plane claims and experimental engine claims today.

Eventually some BD-5's flew, but engine, drive and props where problematic and still are. The plane has a dubious safety record.

When dreaming of building in the 80's, I read Kit plane a lot. I noticed kit plane sellers making what to me even seemed exaggerated claims about airframes and engines. Most of the time they did not even have a prototype plane flying, much less a customer built plane flying. I stayed away with my Dad's BD-5 experience in the back of my mind. I was right, they all faded away and people lost money or something more precious.

I learned NEVER use untried, untested engine, props and airframes. Fortunately I learned from others and never lost my money, but I feel bad for these Gents.

That is what drew me to RV's of course, proven design with proven engines. They also do what they say.

I was looking at the RV-6 before Van had sold the first tail kit. When Van said he would not release performance until they finished flight test's, I knew this might be the plane for me; plus a friends RV-4 plane exceeded specs. With a Lyc, standard prop and low stall speed and metal construction, BINGO! I did not buy my first RV kit until I flew it. I went up with Van the man himself and of course as they say, the rest is history.

When you hear people like myself or others say, build it per plans and keep it simple, there is a reason.
 
Last edited:
TSwezey said:
RV10Hopeful,
I don't think this seller knows his ssa from his elbow! The pictures look like staged....
Click to expand...

I didn't ask for myself so much as for some others who might be able to take advantage (not in a bad way) of getting the airframe and save a few bucks.
I am not now in a position financially to take advantage. But this way the question is already answered for those looking to do something soon.

Thanks for looking out for others though.
 
captainron said:
Got a BD-5 in the hangar attic if you still want one! Some assembly required.
Click to expand...
Cap'n Ron,
What are you asking for the BD-5 kit? Not willing to pay much and shipping would probably be more than I'm willing to pay. I've always wanted a BD-5 to build as a "wind T" for my airport. Anyone else got a cheap BD-5 kit close to Dallas area?
 
Mel said:
Anyone else got a cheap BD-5 kit close to Dallas area?
Click to expand...

Mel,

I was visiting my Alma Mater (University of Minnesota Aero Dept.) a month or two back, and they had a couipel fo BD-5's they had been given years ago. They used them for student projects in structures and such, to give the budding engineers a chance to work with real aircraft structures. They told me that the University legal department wouldn't let them give them away or sell them) due to liability issues...to bad - I'd kind of like one myself, just to play around with....

Paul
 
Couple of points:

1. Given the recent rash of these stories, I hope that we, as a community are prepared to demand a more reasonable business model and to reward business that follow such. In other words, the previous practice of HUGE payments up front with a promise of late delivery should be out. And we should reward companies which operate as real, brick and mortar suppliers to our hobby.

This may mean paying an extra percent or two.

2. Whenever the hanger building talk gets going, my buddies agree (at least one particularly crazy guy) that before we die, we must, simply must build a BD-5

3. I fear we are all doomed to severe regulation soon, what a ridiculous example of fools with much money, no time to learn, and little evidence of thought in their behavior.

What is to be done about it if anything? Should anything be done?

I hate government regulation. The insurance companies can no longer be counted on to sort these out. Any thoughts?
 
I say leave it in the hands of the inspectors. When stuff like this RV10 comes along they just say "sorry, I don't feel the mods you've done are safe and I won't pass it". They'd scream bloody murder but they'd have little recourse. Show that mods are engineered properly or put it back to stock.

We see some crazy stuff get built up here in Canada, luckily most by qualified builder assist shops. In Canada, even buyers of completed amateur built aircraft are allowed to do their own inspections and maintenance. That is just wrong and someone will get killed doing this as some have no skills or brains. Once an AB is sold, I figure only AMEs (your A&Ps) or the original builder should be able to work on it or maybe people who have at least built something before (like your repairman's certificate).

It is also wrong when a plane is mostly or totally built by a shop, then turned over to its owner who can then legally work on it with little or no knowledge.

If you haven't paid your dues by building, you shouldn't get to play mechanic IMO. We've got it a little too easy here I think sometimes.
 
rv6ejguy said:
In Canada, even buyers of completed amateur built aircraft are allowed to do their own inspections and maintenance. That is just wrong and someone will get killed doing this as some have no skills or brains.
Click to expand...
Just a point of clarification: Is it wrong that some may be incompetent and choose to do stupid things, or wrong that the government allows them to do it? Malicious intent is illegal (and should be), but stupidity is not (and shouldn't be). I could turn your assumption around and suggest that someone (or many) will get killed because the government has forced them to use someone less competent than themselves to perform the condition inspection on their airplane.

I'll probably get flamed for this, but I very much believe that it is not a government's job to prevent people from exercising their right to make decisions in their own best interests (or not). This is the very premise upon which experimental aviation is built. Rather it is each person's responsibility to act with sound reason and judgement...especially in aviation to protect their lives and the lives of those who fly with them. Most of us in experimental aviation are very capable of sound, reasoned judgement, and our loved ones are very safe with us in the aircraft that we have lovingly crafted and maintain. Because a few are incompetent should not be a valid reason for any government to step in and prevent others from making choices in their own best interests...including inspecting their own experimental airplanes.

I think all of us need to have a little warning light that goes off in our heads the minute we start thinking "There ought to be a law..." :D I do it all the time and I have to restrain myself! I absolutely agree with the rest of the premise of your post, however.

Dave
 
David,

What about the three innocents that might be in that 10 when the pilot is exercising his "Libertarian right to aircraft building and maintenance"? What about the people in the houses beneath him? It's not just about his personal freedoms, but the safety of others too.
 
Yukon said:
David,

What about the three innocents that might be in that 10 when the pilot is exercising his "Libertarian right to aircraft building and maintenance"? What about the people in the houses beneath him? It's not just about his personal freedoms, but the safety of others too.
Click to expand...
Is that any different than the idiot that has a couple of martinis at lunch, then takes his friends up for a ride in his brand new Bonanza? Or the guy that leaves the bar at closing, and decides to show the girl he just picked up how fast his supercharged crotch rocket really can go? Or ?????

I really do hate to say it, but I've become convinced that stupid people will find a way to kill themselves, and others as well, often invoking their God given, or constitutional (Bill of Rights) rights as an excuse to do so. And while it's truly unfortuneate that innocents sometimes get in the way, I doubt we could enact and enforce sufficient laws to prevent it form happening.

It would seem that at some point Darwin's Law would cull the number of idiots out there, but every generation seems to spawn a new batch :eek:
 
Last edited:
What about the three innocents that might be in that 10
Click to expand...
What about them? What sort of law can a government enact that will be stronger than the penalty of death or worse...living on to deal with the guilt of having killed loved ones through ignorance or arrogance? Those 2 possibilities are more than enough to keep me humble, reasoned and diligent about the airplane building (and flying) process.

To put it another way....(stealing Dave's argument) how IS it different than people choosing to take a ride home with a guy they spent the night drinking margaritas with?

Dave
 
I tend to agree with Yukon on this slant. While natural selection may cull the idiot pilots from our ranks, extra accidents and deaths of lay passengers can only hurt our sport's image, insurance rates and invite yet more government regulation. While I see part of your argument as valid, what should we do- no inspection or regs at all- fly whatever we want? Not going to happen.

My suggestion is not to let the governments get hold of it but nip it in the bud at the existing inspection level.
 
Self regulate

Good post Ross.
Our Ag aviation associations saw increasing bureaucratic activity in the seventies and it was also agreed then that in order for us to avoid further regulation and stifling of our businesses, that we'd have to self-police and reduce drift claims, etc, or it would be done by big Brother.

Through the National Ag Aviation Association and many States' participation, the claims rates decreased, as did the drift claims and a lot of effort goes into self-policing and it's working rather well.

Through our local EAA chapters and the parent organization, I believe we can do similar procedures.

Regards,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top