What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Poll: RV-10 Empty Weight Ranges

Your RV-10's Empty Weight?

  • 1475 - 1525

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • 1525 - 1575

    Votes: 6 9.2%
  • 1575 - 1625

    Votes: 8 12.3%
  • 1625 - 1675

    Votes: 19 29.2%
  • 1675 - 1725

    Votes: 20 30.8%
  • 1725 - 1775

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • 1775 - 1825

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • 1825- 1875

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • 1875 - 1925

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1925 - 1975

    Votes: 3 4.6%

  • Total voters
    65

1001001

Well Known Member
In my build I am considering (as we all do) the trade-offs between weight, performance, cost, and comfort.

I want to see what the statistics say about best achievable and most realistic empty weights.

I haven't been able to find this information all in one place so i figured I would ask the question here:

What is the basic empty weight of *your* RV-10? Please answer the poll with the closest "bin" your airplane fits in, and put your actual BEW in the text. If you can, please include info about any special equipment you added or subtracted like air conditioning, redundant alternator, etc.

I know that the upper and lower ends of my poll options are a bit unrealistic, but I'm curious to see if anyone has pushed those boundaries one way or the other.

Thanks!

Edited to note that I have to vote to be able to see the poll results, so I'm voting 1600 even though i only am on the empennage so far.
 
Last edited:
Mine came in at 1629. I have a secondary alternator on the vacuum pump pad, a fiberglass overhead console, and a full Flightline Interiors interior but no exterior paint so that number will go up eventually.
 
1615 before paint. 1640 after paint
Dual EFIS, Full interior, no o/h console.
single battery, alt
 
1638 pounds empty

I bought the RV-10 and it was painted twice and not stripped completely from what I can tell. The panel was also updated and some of the old wiring left in place adding weight.

Equipment included dual GRT EFIS, GRT engine monitor, b/u Alt and A/S, Freeflight ADS-B in and out. SL-10/30/40, traditional strobes and power supply etc.

Early posts on this RV-10 indicated empty weight around 1590 but that was 10 years ago and before paint.

Airplanes are like people, they tend to get heavier as they age;)

TJ
 
Dave, you are asking a question that will generate some emotional responses and debate. A quick search of the archives will provide background. Look for the threads about Greg Hale's build and Van's letter.

What's your concern?

I have a fairly loaded RV-10. Two batteries, two alternators, and just about every one of Geoff's products installed.

Am I over Van's recommended gross if I have four males, full fuel, and luggage? Yes, but then name another four place aircraft that doesn't have similar attributes. Fortunately for me, that's not my mission and I've never had an issue with gross weight or CG.

Whether you want to build light or fully decked out, build the aircraft you want.

I could probably knock 20-30lbs off the build if I built another one just to being more educated in the proper application of products. For example:
  1. Most primer is to be applied opaque, not a solid color
  2. Choose top coats colors and painters carefully. I have a metallic red that took about twice the number of coats to get it to look right compared to the other colors.
  3. Ensure you don't use too much epoxy. A typical newbie mistake

bob
 
1631 first weighing, no paint only partially done interior. Dual alt/battery.

After paint and finishing interior, 1660ish as I recall.
 
Dave, you are asking a question that will generate some emotional responses and debate. A quick search of the archives will provide background. Look for the threads about Greg Hale's build and Van's letter.

What's your concern?

I have a fairly loaded RV-10. Two batteries, two alternators, and just about every one of Geoff's products installed.

Am I over Van's recommended gross if I have four males, full fuel, and luggage? Yes, but then name another four place aircraft that doesn't have similar attributes. Fortunately for me, that's not my mission and I've never had an issue with gross weight or CG.

Whether you want to build light or fully decked out, build the aircraft you want.

I could probably knock 20-30lbs off the build if I built another one just to being more educated in the proper application of products. For example:
  1. Most primer is to be applied opaque, not a solid color
  2. Choose top coats colors and painters carefully. I have a metallic red that took about twice the number of coats to get it to look right compared to the other colors.
  3. Ensure you don't use too much epoxy. A typical newbie mistake

bob

Bob,
My concern is primarily to see what the statistics say is possible and likely. I want the best performing, most efficient plane i can build that i can also afford and that can be built in minimum time. My secondary (but serious) concern is comfort. I intend to eventually be flying this plane long distances and i want a ride that makes that possible and enjoyable for me and my passengers.

But I don't want to be shooting for an unrealistic target, either. Collecting data and analyzing it seems a good way of avoiding that trap. Having a Ph.D statistician around the house tends to make you think this way.
 
1608.
Full ifr with autopilot (Grt/dynon/sl30/Garmin420), thin white paint external, basic interior (no extra insulation, no overhead console or headliner).
 
Mine was 1563 before paint, and is likely somewhere around 1600 now. Quite stock. I like how it flies.
 
1695 here initially. That's mostly full interior, overhead console, soundproofing in the floors and some walls, all interior surfaces were primered, and a full IFR panel with autopilot. Like Bob, I also have a metallic paint job that took a lot more coats than a solid and lots of clear coat as well.

Even with the heavy-ish weight, it still flies really well. My only issue weight-wise was the CG was farther back than I wanted. I recently moved my battery to the firewall (saved 5 pounds in the process of going to a PC680) and got the CG where I wanted for the loadings that I wanted.
 
Bob,
My concern is primarily to see what the statistics say is possible and likely. I want the best performing, most efficient plane i can build that i can also afford and that can be built in minimum time. My secondary (but serious) concern is comfort. I intend to eventually be flying this plane long distances and i want a ride that makes that possible and enjoyable for me and my passengers.

But I don't want to be shooting for an unrealistic target, either. Collecting data and analyzing it seems a good way of avoiding that trap. Having a Ph.D statistician around the house tends to make you think this way.

Comfort is such a subjective term. What's comfortable to me may not be to you. Some folks are happy with a minimalist approach, which is ok, because it's their aircraft. My build tends to have more creature comfort customizations built in because I wanted a more "comfortable cruiser".

For example, if you take a look at Aerosport Products panels and interiors. The carbon fiber is light weight compared to fiber glass, but it also costs a bit more too. The kydex side panels don't weigh much either. I chose to give up a few pounds to get a better looking interior.

I would highly recommend giving Geoff Combs at Aerosport Products a call to discuss the weights of his products. It will give you some idea that they really aren't don't impact W&B significantly. I'm sure that there are other vendors that would be happy to have the same conversation as well.

Also, in some cases, it will also benefit by shorten build time. For example the overhead console and the head liner with allow you to skip significant work on finishing the inside of the cabin cover.
 
Results

Dave,

You conduct a poll; super! Results may be useful when done well.

What can we learn from the results?

How many responses do you need for statistical significance?

How will you publish the results in a way that helps the community with their understanding of the work we do? Will the results given in an academic or a practical context?

Will there be follow-on polls? For instance, correlating weight to speed?

Enquiring minds want to know!
 
I came in a bit lardo at 1724 (thanks for the 1725 cutoff).

I have one batt and one alt, but I have air-conditioning, overhead console, and sound proofing in every fuse cavity. Full interior with headliner.

I have flown dozens of high performance singles and nothing compares to the performance of this amazing machine. I've flown certified airplanes at under their legal weight and well within performance envelopes that scared the krap out of me with their anemic performance. Sure light is nice, but it is much more important on an acro than a 10. My advice is if you are going to build an 8, build it as light as possible, if you are going to the effort and cost to build a comfortable cross country cruiser like the 10, then don't be afraid to build it out (intelligently), and enjoy the bells and whistles. Your wife will thank you.

Someone very close to me got caught in one of those unplanned middle of the night situations that required a tough decision to load more weight than normally should be loaded. DON'T EVER DO THIS! However, he was highly experienced and knew how to handle it. DON'T EVER DO THIS!

The airplane never blinked an eye ... SO I'VE HEARD ... BUT DON'T EVER DO THIS.
 
Last edited:
Dave,

You conduct a poll; super! Results may be useful when done well.

What can we learn from the results?

How many responses do you need for statistical significance?

How will you publish the results in a way that helps the community with their understanding of the work we do? Will the results given in an academic or a practical context?

Will there be follow-on polls? For instance, correlating weight to speed?

Enquiring minds want to know!

I'll have to ask the resident statistician. I'm sure she'll yell at me for collecting data before consulting a statistician to determine what data is required to answer the question (she's not a big believer in "big data").
 
Looking at the poll options, I realize now that I did the bins wrong--there are duplicates at the top and bottom of each bin.

For the sake of consistency, please consider your plane in the higher bin if you're on the edge (for instance, 1725 should be in the 1725-1775 bin, not the 1675 - 1725 bin.
 
Comfort is such a subjective term. What's comfortable to me may not be to you. Some folks are happy with a minimalist approach, which is ok, because it's their aircraft. My build tends to have more creature comfort customizations built in because I wanted a more "comfortable cruiser".

For example, if you take a look at Aerosport Products panels and interiors. The carbon fiber is light weight compared to fiber glass, but it also costs a bit more too. The kydex side panels don't weigh much either. I chose to give up a few pounds to get a better looking interior.

I would highly recommend giving Geoff Combs at Aerosport Products a call to discuss the weights of his products. It will give you some idea that they really aren't don't impact W&B significantly. I'm sure that there are other vendors that would be happy to have the same conversation as well.

Also, in some cases, it will also benefit by shorten build time. For example the overhead console and the head liner with allow you to skip significant work on finishing the inside of the cabin cover.

Bob,

Build time is a major concern for me and therefore i will not hesitate to spend a tad more for a preassembled component like a center console or overhead liner ( I really liked the one you have in your plane). However, i do intend to set up a spreadsheet of all options I'm considering, complete with weight (product weight and estimated installed weight) to try to make sure before I buy something that I'm not building too much nonessential weight into the aircraft.

I think a valuable resource for builders would be a database of options and their weights and normal CG locations. Maybe my effort will help get that started.
 
Yelling!

She should yell at you!

And, this is not a big data problem as most of the data can be easily structured. The real question is how good is the data & the resident expert may be able to apply statistical magic to get some sense of the sample's reliability.

While the results may help your build, developing some useful analysis would be grand. If for no other reason than to bound conversations.

Thanks for the start. The threads Bob Leffler suggested may also have data that could be included in the sample size.
 
1659 pounds
- Two batteries
- Full paint (top coat and clear coat)
- Dual EFIS install
- Pitch and roll autopilot
- Insulation on firewall, floors and sides plus a cabin top liner

Carl
 
Gravity

Most everyone familiar with the RV 10 knows that is has outstanding performance. Flying mine the past 8 years has spoiled me to the point I cringe when I have to fly another plane.

The success of the RV 10 has launched several cottage businesses and numerous modifications/add-ons. People will debate for days which ones are a necessity and which ones are a luxury item. As an experimental builder you can choose to add as many as you like. However, no matter what you do to justify every mod they all add more weight.

Weight and gravity in an airplane are very predictable. After several flights with 3 people and several with four people on board, I can tell you there is a measurable difference in fuel burn. More weight = more gas!

As we all know everything in the build process is a trade-off. So if you decide to add more and fly lots of long trips, expect to spend more on 100LL. If you want super comfort and plan to fly very few trips don't worry about weight.

Some have suggested those builders that spend several thousand more on their RV 10 have extra cash and don't worry about fuel costs. Seems logical but I still hear and read from those builders about the high cost of fuel and how it effects their flying hours.

Just build it and fly it................SAFELY!
 
' "Also, in some cases, it will also benefit by shorten build time. For example the overhead console and the head liner with allow you to skip significant work on finishing the inside of the cabin cover."

Bob,

Build time is a major concern for me....'

Of course, you always have the option of doing nothing (I spray painted to cover the awful pink) if you really want to minimize time and cost.
 
Don't take this the wrong way, I have a smile on my face, but the only thing you learn from a poll like this is what everyone else is doing. It does nothing to illuminate the functional tradeoffs involving cost, complexity, build time and difficulty, comfort, performance, etc. As a couple of posters have noted, what really matters are your personal priorities. I would suggest that following the flock is not a good way to build an airplane that fits your needs and desires.
 
How to Predict

The problem is trying to predict in advance where your plane will end up. Unless you weigh each item as it's added.(which I know guys DO do that). I, of course, want to keep our plane light for both performance and useful load, but, I also want what I want. Like Bob said, certain creature comforts. Both for myself and for future resale value should that happen. So, I've tried to pick my battles: SOME soundproofing, but not everywhere. Carbon fiber everywhere I can afford. Composite prop, no AC etc. BUT, because of our set up, I have dual batteries,dual alt, I wanted a comfy interior, full IFR capabilities, O2 system(easily removable to save 10lbs if there's 4 of us on a shorter flight). I'm only hoping that I end up SUB 1700, and that my CG ends up either middle or forward as expected so I can control it. If it ends up too far back then I either need to get fat, or start moving things...:eek:
 
Don't take this the wrong way, I have a smile on my face, but the only thing you learn from a poll like this is what everyone else is doing. It does nothing to illuminate the functional tradeoffs involving cost, complexity, build time and difficulty, comfort, performance, etc. As a couple of posters have noted, what really matters are your personal priorities. I would suggest that following the flock is not a good way to build an airplane that fits your needs and desires.

Andy,

I understand your comment, and rest assured that I'm planning on building the plane I want. But i am also interested in the distribution of weights that people have achieved. To be perfectly frank, I'm not asking for advice here, I'm asking for raw data that I will use to assess the possibilities. If i wanted to, for instance, target a 1550 lb empty weight, and only 1% of RV10s have achieved that, I might reasonably conclude that there are substantial barriers involved, i.e. no one else wants a plane that light or, more realistically, that with desirable options, that weight is impractical without significant expense in terms of money or tradeoffs.

I would be willing to bet, at the end of this, given a sufficient sample size, that anything outside of 1 -1.5 standard deviations from the mean will represent significant cost or sacrificee of capability/comfort.

I do intend to weigh options quite literally, by estimating their installed weight before purchasing them, so as to allow me to make informed decisions about appropriate equipment for my needs.
 
Got it. One consideration is that we don't know for the airplanes on the light end just what is included in that weight. Might be interesting to look at specific airplanes. As I recall, the factory demonstrator, Van's personal -10, and my own stock and simple 10 are all around 1600 lbs. I'm pretty certain that is a solid floor for an airplane with paint and four seats (perhaps minus a new light weight battery). We need to get together sometime and trade notes. Good Luck,
 
Got it. One consideration is that we don't know for the airplanes on the light end just what is included in that weight. Might be interesting to look at specific airplanes. As I recall, the factory demonstrator, Van's personal -10, and my own stock and simple 10 are all around 1600 lbs. I'm pretty certain that is a solid floor for an airplane with paint and four seats (perhaps minus a new light weight battery). We need to get together sometime and trade notes. Good Luck,

Andy, I agree we should meet up sometime. I'll fly up to AXQ in the Warrior or you can trek to BVI, your preference.
 
Finished in 2008, Re-weighed within the last couple of years. 1711 as it sits today. Paint, Flightline AC airconditioning, tip tanks, 1 PC-925 battery, B&C 20 amp standby alternator, VP200 duo with climate control, Flightline Interiors upholstery, Airwolf remote oil filter, National Airparts 70 amp alternator. Probably a few more little items, but I can't think of 'em right now.
 
The problem is trying to predict in advance where your plane will end up. Unless you weigh each item as it's added.(which I know guys DO do that). I, of course, want to keep our plane light for both performance and useful load, but, I also want what I want. Like Bob said, certain creature comforts. Both for myself and for future resale value should that happen. So, I've tried to pick my battles: SOME soundproofing, but not everywhere. Carbon fiber everywhere I can afford. Composite prop, no AC etc. BUT, because of our set up, I have dual batteries,dual alt, I wanted a comfy interior, full IFR capabilities, O2 system(easily removable to save 10lbs if there's 4 of us on a shorter flight). I'm only hoping that I end up SUB 1700, and that my CG ends up either middle or forward as expected so I can control it. If it ends up too far back then I either need to get fat, or start moving things...:eek:

I think a good poll to go along with this one is a CG poll. Based on other threads, I've seen where many folks have CGs that are aft of what I consider the most desirable location for the types of loads I wanted to carry. I wound up with a tail heavy-ish plane, and am glad that I did not opt for a composite prop, or dual batteries, which would have exasperated my problem. As it is, I had to move my battery to the firewall to get it where I wanted.
 
I think a good poll to go along with this one is a CG poll. Based on other threads, I've seen where many folks have CGs that are aft of what I consider the most desirable location for the types of loads I wanted to carry. I wound up with a tail heavy-ish plane, and am glad that I did not opt for a composite prop, or dual batteries, which would have exasperated my problem. As it is, I had to move my battery to the firewall to get it where I wanted.

After talking with the resident statistician, I am considering setting up a Survey Monkey survey with additional questions...
 
It appears that you are getting some bad data. I'm having a very hard time believing that there are five RV-10s over 1800lbs. I'm only aware of one well publicized RV-10 that would fall into that category. I have a pretty well decked out interior and I don't come anywhere close to 1800.

I wish you luck in your endeavor. Unfortunately, the three or four folks that attempted to do the same previously only managed to get a handful of data points and weren't successful building a useful database.
 
I don't know, Bob. Once you add air conditioning, built-in oxygen, tip tanks, anti-ice, speed brakes, etc., I think it wouldn't be too difficult to exceed 1800lbs.
 
Not knowing if these reported weights are from using calibrated load cell scales, I take it all in with a grain of salt. I have read about people using $10 bathroom scales, platform grain scales, and other contraptions. We tried weighing the Cozy MKIV I helped build with A platform scale borrowed from a local EAA chapter and found the results questionable. We decided to take the plunge and purchased a set of calibrated load cell racing scales and the results were significantly different.
 
Back
Top