Questions before we build

[WKumley]

My wife and I are in the researching stage of looking for a suitable 4 seat experimental to build that will meet our goals and the RV-10 has recently been added to my list. She wants to see one in person first but I feel like finding an RV-10 will be easier than finding a BD-4c (another plane that was on my radar for a while). A little more background: We own and fly a Piper Colt and love it, other than its speed for cross country and the fact that it limits us to only us with no additional passengers. I'm active duty Navy and started my career as an avionics technician which has helped with the Colt as I was able to do my own avionics upgrade and the local shop at the time signed off my work. They also offered me a job but I wasn't ready to commit to that since I knew the Navy would move me again, and they did. We want a plane that will work as a cross country platform with additional seats so we can have more flexibility to take friends with us on occasion.

Planes that made the short list:
Velocity - her favorite. I've come around to the idea but don't like the landing/takeoff distances required and the only real baggage area to speak of is either the back seat or the small arm wells you can build into the wing strakes. But you're using passenger space even if you have something small enough to fit there. She really likes the looks and the center stick or dual sidestick option as it frees up her legroom. We've sat in a few and she was a passenger in a friends Velocity twin.

BD-4c - my favorite until we talked to Jim Bede Jr at Sun n Fun this year. The conversation shifted rather quickly to him wanting to sell the company. This resulted in a lot of concern for support and parts availability if we ever need it. Granted, if we build it, we would likely be able to get the material and fix it without ordering something from BD directly. They also failed to have a 4c at Sun n Fun like they hoped for earlier in the year so we were not able to see one in person.

RV-10 - recent addition to my list as it meets our goals and is effectively the same cost as a Velocity. It also looks a lot nicer than the BD.

Questions I now have about the RV-10.
Is the listed total weight/useful load accurate on the website? I've seen plenty of experimental aircraft that end up quite a bit different than the published numbers on weight. I understand the builder impacts this a lot with choice of interior finish, engine, mods, etc... but if you stick to the plans can you expect to see published numbers?

Has anyone considered a center stick option or sidesticks? Is it even needed? As we haven't sat in or flown in a RV-10 yet this may be a non-issue but I'm curious of the options. I could also probably make the copilot control stick removeable as I've seen that done with other airplanes with control sticks. From what I've seen so far, the center tunnel in the RV is loaded with other stuff so changing to a center stick between the seats may not even be feasible.

I've got a small old air compressor (10-12 gallon) and imagine I'll need an upgrade in the setup. Is there a recommended size/cfm combo for building an RV? I doubt I'll paint the plane myself and that is at the end so the big demand tools I can think of are the drill and rivet gun.

Last, is anyone in the Pacific Norhtwest with an RV-10 that they'd be willing to let us look at and pick your brain? We're already talking about visiting the factory soon-ish but would like to talk to owners to get their own pros/cons about the plane. We are based at 0S9 in Jefferson County Washington across the Puget Sound from Seattle.

 

[fixnflyguy]

You'll get plenty of answers here...Eliminate all your other "choices".The Velocity is cool, but it's not conventional, and is somewhat of a niche audience. You'll find the -10 to be more versatile in every way, and you can get parts/ guidance and support like no other Experimental on the planet. Your in the Northwest..Vans aircraft is basically in your backyard down near Portland. The RV-10 is robust and has outstanding handling and speed as well as durability. If you are going to build one, and have not done anything like this before, it's an undertaking that requires dedication and commitment. Fortunately, building any RV series aircraft is easier than others, and the support of the RV community (such as VAF) is fantastic. Now, go get a ride !

 

[kirkbauer]

I did heavily consider a Velocity (maybe even a Velocity XL) and I didn't go that direction for a few reasons:

• Builder support/community is much more lacking than the RV-10 (for example see the RV-10 Community Wiki, not to mention Vans Air Force)
• I did not care for the high stall/landing speeds. Not only does it take a lot more runway, but in an off-airport landing, the energy is the square root of your speed. Landing in a grass field at 55kt is a lot better than 65kt.

But now there is a new reason that I am very, very glad I did not build a Velocity:

• I hate fiberglass. I loved the aluminum portions of the build but not the fiberglass.
• I read a story about somebody spending 3 years sanding their Velocity build

Answers to your questions:

1. Every RV-10 will be different. Some builders choose to certify it at a higher gross weight. My flying RV-10 (not built by me) has a max takeoff weight of 2800 (100lb over standard), max landing weight of 2700, and empty weight of 1725. There are definitely things you can do to make it both heavier and lighter, with heavier being the easier of the two. I'm about halfway done with my own RV-10 build and I'm worried it will come in heavier. I will probably certify it at 2900 max takeoff weight if I need to.
2. Moving the control stick would be a very complicated and (IMO) dangerous modification that I would not be comfortable with. I can't see any way to move it to the center or the side without making it a lot more complex mechanically. Other than takeoff and landing the sticks don't have to move very far so it really isn't in the passenger's way during cruise. On my new build, I am making the passenger stick removable, though, just in case I have a larger passenger or want to store something heavy in the passenger footwell (with proper precautions to avoid the rudder pedals of course). I have only flown a Cirrus (sidestick) once but compared to that and a yoke I prefer the RV-10 stick.
3. I have a super small cheap air compressor and it has been no problem for my building. Definitely not an issue for the rivet gun and squeezer. I also use it for my paint gun (priming). I use a battery-powered drill. The only time I wish I had more air volume is my air-powered die grinder (but they make electric ones of those). I mean any excuse to get newer and better tools is a good one, but I'd spend my money first on other things -- wall-mounted shop vac (I use it all the time), best rivet squeezer and gun, band saw, etc. See my list of recommended tools.
4. I'm nowhere near you otherwise I'd offer up a ride.

 

[scrollF4]

I know you didn’t include the SR-22 in your list (and this is not an endorsement), but you may find this video useful: I tells you much about what to expect from the RV-10. Good luck!

 

[D-Dubya]

Look for a fly-in to attend in your area, and you'll likely see a whole bunch of planes on your list. That's an easy way to look at multiple aircraft without having to track down multiple owners. Talk to the owners if possible. Builder owners love to talk about their planes.

Trying to convert to a center or side stick is going to be a major pain. Major pain. Seriously. Frankly, any kind of modification like that is going to add exponentially to the time to build and most likely the cost. Trust me, I've see me do it. We engineers like to think we can make a better mousetrap--but in all likelihood, it's just a mousetrap that you poured time and money into. Practically anything you read from experienced builders on how to build an experimental aircraft will echo this sentiment. Learn from others' experiences.

You'll likely need a bigger air compressor. I did my entire build with a 5 HP, 26 gallon compressor, and it's still with me today after almost 25 years. Bigger is good, but you don't need one of those giant automobile repair shop models. They take up too much valuable space. If possible, see if you can actually hear one run, as quieter is preferred. It keeps you from having to shout to your rivet partner when it cycles on. There are mixed reviews about the oil-free compressors, so just do your homework before you leap.

Lastly, Van's published numbers are pretty much spot on across the board. Yes, Van's typically has had very spartan panels and interiors on their factory planes, as that had been their philosophy from the beginning. But I seem to recall reading an article recently that they did a full panel upgrade on their 10 to better reflect what many owners were installing. Deluxe interiors add weight and take up some space, but it's all about what you want for your machine. I've got an RV-7 with all the toys I wanted, so it's a little on the thick side with two of us in it--but I still see about 175 knots cruise at 7,500 feet running ROP. That's right at Van's published numbers of 200 mph cruise (give or take a few mph).

 

[lr172]

Look for a fly-in to attend in your area, and you'll likely see a whole bunch of planes on your list. That's an easy way to look at multiple aircraft without having to track down multiple owners. Talk to the owners if possible. Builder owners love to talk about their planes.

Trying to convert to a center or side stick is going to be a major pain. Major pain. Seriously. Frankly, any kind of modification like that is going to add exponentially to the time to build and most likely the cost. Trust me, I've see me do it. We engineers like to think we can make a better mousetrap--but in all likelihood, it's just a mousetrap that you poured time and money into. Practically anything you read from experienced builders on how to build an experimental aircraft will echo this sentiment. Learn from others' experiences.

You'll likely need a bigger air compressor. I did my entire build with a 5 HP, 26 gallon compressor, and it's still with me today after almost 25 years. Bigger is good, but you don't need one of those giant automobile repair shop models. They take up too much valuable space. If possible, see if you can actually hear one run, as quieter is preferred. It keeps you from having to shout to your rivet partner when it cycles on. There are mixed reviews about the oil-free compressors, so just do your homework before you leap.

Lastly, Van's published numbers are pretty much spot on across the board. Yes, Van's typically has had very spartan panels and interiors on their factory planes, as that had been their philosophy from the beginning. But I seem to recall reading an article recently that they did a full panel upgrade on their 10 to better reflect what many owners were installing. Deluxe interiors add weight and take up some space, but it's all about what you want for your machine. I've got an RV-7 with all the toys I wanted, so it's a little on the thick side with two of us in it--but I still see about 175 knots cruise at 7,500 feet running ROP. That's right at Van's published numbers of 200 mph cruise (give or take a few mph).

They can be built light if carefull. Mine was 1640 with tools and fire extinguisher. I can get all the way past gross with reasonable sized people in the back and 100#'s of baggage and be inside the envelope. Need to work on keeping the weight forward. I nees 35#'s in back when solo.

 

[AirShowFan]

Two Facebook groups that you might want to join are Flights Above the Pacific Northwest and PNW-AF. If you ask around there, I bet someone with an RV-10 would offer you a ride. (And if somehow that doesn't work, I can think of two or three RV-10 people in the Seattle area who would probably be happy to do it).

As for weight... before the revamp, Van's RV-10 prototype was maybe a hair over 1,600 lbs empty. That was as bare-bones an RV-10 as you're likely to find. They are rare but they do exist. If you get all the bells and whistles - fancy interior, air conditioning, 290 hp, a BRS parachute installation - then you could get the empty weight up to about 1,850 empty. That's the other extreme, also not common but not unheard of, either. Most people seem to end up in the low 1700s.

 

[Ralph Inkster]

You are so close to Van's Aircraft. It would really pay you to make the trip down there to get a tour, get to touch & sit in a 10, & most important to get a ride in one. The ultimate experience for making this big decision!

 

[BobTurner]

Just for reference, my -10 has a 1609 lbs BEW. Full fuel (60 gal), over 700 lbs of people and bags. Full ifr but minimal sound insulation, interior. You do need to watch CG both solo and with a lot of weight in the back.
I know someone who bought a Velocity and his insurance bill is astronomical. Call Jenny or Leah at Gallagher (look on this site for their ad) and have a free conversation.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

My -10 comes in at 1607 lbs. It is fairly basic, but does have the overhead plenum and vents. It could be 30-40 pounds lighter with a composite prop and EarthX battery. So you can build them to Van's spec. For Oshkosh next week, we'll launch with 735 pounds of people, just under 50 gallons of fuel, and about 80 pounds of baggage.

One of the really nice things about the -10 is that the front seaters are seated up high and close to the leading edge of the wing. The visibility is tremendous. Also, it is probably the easiest airplane to land I've ever flown.

 

[RV7Guy]

Having built two RV7's and traveled in them extensively, they are great planes. My wife and I wanted something that would carry golf clubs. The only reasonable choice was the RV10. We bought one locally (Phx area) with air conditioning. We now wish we would have got one 10 years ago. Or instead of building the second 7, I should have built a 10. Great airplane. Easy to fly with tons of utility and comfort. We are packing for Oshkosh now and will have two golf bags, suitcases and supplies. I took the back seats out to make it easier.

Forget the Velocity. As has been mentioned, it is kind of niche plane with limited utility. Cool looking but.....The main reason for the RV10 is the unlimited resources for information, build assistance and solid company support.

 

[WKumley]

Thanks for all the replies. If anyone has more advice, please chime in. You all bring up some very valid points. The Velocity is definitely a niche airframe with a unique look and flight characteristics. The fiberglass work doesn't necessarily scare me but that could be because I haven't experienced it firsthand. Velocity's due land faster and require more runway but I've seen a few pictures of not good landings with Velocity's and the majority of them are completely survivable, probably a byproduct of all the foam and fiberglass that creates a pod around the occupants. I will say that from my research Velocity has a fairly robust builder forum with VOBA but as more people have started and completed RVs I think the support in the RV world is more substantial. That also comes with a higher chance of occasionally getting info that isn't great so I'll need to weed through recommendations as I ask more questions.

The consensus so far is keep the controls stock. I actually like this idea as I don't really want to add complexity to the build where I don't have to, but I will need to get my wife in a -10 so she can see the control stick is a non-issue. By making hers removeable I'd get the best of both worlds for her and I.

As far as planned upgrades at the moment. I see no need personally to add a BRS. From what I can tell you can recover from a stall in a -10 and my understanding on the reasoning to add the BRS into the Cirrus was because of concerns with a difficult to recover stall but I have no experience with the Cirrus.

A/C sounds need but also like another thing I'd likely not add unless its a minimal weight/space thing. As the goal is to make a cross country flyer I'd wager once you get up high the temps are cool enough a simple Naca scoop fed to a couple air vents would suffice. Please let me know if I'm off base.

I'd likely add things like an AOA indicator, external port for a battery tender, and maybe a couple camera mounts if I ever want to film my flights.

I'm already on the FATPNW page and will look at the other one recommended.

The insurance concern is real. I test flew a Dragonfly before we bought the Colt and when I got a quote for that plane it was through the roof. The dragonfly was also built heavy and its rigging was way off with a bit of a Frankenstein setup so it was easy for us to pass on it. It is the only time I felt like kissing the ground after safely exiting the plane. I don't blame the Dragonfly plans on this, I blame the builder who knew he built a heavy plane and compensated it with a motor twice the size of what was recommended by the plans.

I'll keep my eye out for deals on tools but think a trip to Aurora will happen before a decision is made as we would want to ensure we are getting into something that will be supported through the build.

 

[BobTurner]

The consensus so far is keep the controls stock.

Forgot to mention: As soon as you deviate from the plans build time goes way up. One thing affects 3 other things. That said, lots of folks do do their own thing.

As far as planned upgrades at the moment. I see no need personally to add a BRS. From what I can tell you can recover from a stall in a -10 and my understanding on the reasoning to add the BRS into the Cirrus was because of concerns with a difficult to recover stall but I have no experience with the Cirrus.

IIRC the Cirrus parachute was needed to meet the spin requirement (recoverable from ‘incipient’ spins) for normally certified aircraft.
The -10 has very straightforward stall and stall recover characteristics (big rudder helps). Vans spun the prototype (no issues) but does not approve of deliberate spins.

A/C sounds need but also like another thing I'd likely not add unless its a minimal weight/space thing. As the goal is to make a cross country flyer I'd wager once you get up high the temps are cool enough a simple Naca scoop fed to a couple air vents would suffice. Please let me know if I'm off base.

You got it right. AC adds weight, not really needed in Pacific NW. If you base in horrible places like AZ or FL, maybe. Stock -10 comes with scoops and vents.

I'd likely add things like an AOA indicator, external port for a battery tender, and maybe a couple camera mounts if I ever want to film my flights.

Nearly all new builds have an electronic EFIS. And most if not all can process AOA data from a 2 probe pitot.

 

[WKumley]

You got it right. AC adds weight, not really needed in Pacific NW. If you base in horrible places like AZ or FL, maybe. Stock -10 comes with scoops and vents.

I'm still active duty so the odds are that I won't be in the PNW when this build starts unless I start in the next 12 months. Even if it does, the Navy will likely move me again so I'll end up somewhere, Florida is a possibility, AZ not so much as we don't have bases there as far as I know. But there are plenty of other warm climates that could be my next or last duty station. Currently thinking of retiring in NC where we own a house already but that is still up in the air.

 

[Cessnadog]

Ok, maybe a bit off topic, but I wanted to correct a couple of misconceptions about Cirrus aircraft.
When the Klapmeier brothers set out to build the first Cirrus they had some specific safety concerns. One of them had been involved in a mid-air collision and having a parachute was part of the original plan for that specific reason.

With money tight for the certification process, and with the added expense of having to do all the test flights/parachute deployments they were looking for ways to reduce costs to get to the market. They asked the FAA if they could skip the required spin testing and designate the parachute was the approved recovery from a spin. The FAA agreed.

The certification authority in Europe did not agree and the SR series of aircraft satisfactorily completed the full EU spin test series without needing the parachute.

 

[fixnflyguy]

I'm still active duty so the odds are that I won't be in the PNW when this build starts unless I start in the next 12 months. Even if it does, the Navy will likely move me again so I'll end up somewhere, Florida is a possibility, AZ not so much as we don't have bases there as far as I know. But there are plenty of other warm climates that could be my next or last duty station. Currently thinking of retiring in NC where we own a house already but that is still up in the air.

Building a 10 while active duty and moving around surely won't be easy. I've helped a couple other active duty folks (from NC) acquire flying RV''s to fill the gap until they are ready to build, and that made life simple and provided a traveling machine from deployment base back to NC . One was an RV-8 (AF pilot, based Fla then NM, now OK), the other an RV-4 . Have you given that any thought? Where in NC ? I'm at 8A7 Twin Lakes near Winston-Salem.

 

[3stepdrop]

I did heavily consider a Velocity (maybe even a Velocity XL) and I didn't go that direction for a few reasons:

• Builder support/community is much more lacking than the RV-10 (for example see the RV-10 Community Wiki, not to mention Vans Air Force)
• I did not care for the high stall/landing speeds. Not only does it take a lot more runway, but in an off-airport landing, the energy is the square root of your speed. Landing in a grass field at 55kt is a lot better than 65kt.

But now there is a new reason that I am very, very glad I did not build a Velocity:

• I hate fiberglass. I loved the aluminum portions of the build but not the fiberglass.
• I read a story about somebody spending 3 years sanding their Velocity build

Answers to your questions:

1. Every RV-10 will be different. Some builders choose to certify it at a higher gross weight. My flying RV-10 (not built by me) has a max takeoff weight of 2800 (100lb over standard), max landing weight of 2700, and empty weight of 1725. There are definitely things you can do to make it both heavier and lighter, with heavier being the easier of the two. I'm about halfway done with my own RV-10 build and I'm worried it will come in heavier. I will probably certify it at 2900 max takeoff weight if I need to.
2. Moving the control stick would be a very complicated and (IMO) dangerous modification that I would not be comfortable with. I can't see any way to move it to the center or the side without making it a lot more complex mechanically. Other than takeoff and landing the sticks don't have to move very far so it really isn't in the passenger's way during cruise. On my new build, I am making the passenger stick removable, though, just in case I have a larger passenger or want to store something heavy in the passenger footwell (with proper precautions to avoid the rudder pedals of course). I have only flown a Cirrus (sidestick) once but compared to that and a yoke I prefer the RV-10 stick.
3. I have a super small cheap air compressor and it has been no problem for my building. Definitely not an issue for the rivet gun and squeezer. I also use it for my paint gun (priming). I use a battery-powered drill. The only time I wish I had more air volume is my air-powered die grinder (but they make electric ones of those). I mean any excuse to get newer and better tools is a good one, but I'd spend my money first on other things -- wall-mounted shop vac (I use it all the time), best rivet squeezer and gun, band saw, etc. See my list of recommended tools.
4. I'm nowhere near you otherwise I'd offer up a ride.

Don't want to hijack this thread, but since you're an hour away from me, I'd happily buy your lunch for a ride in your -10. I'm a few more months away from FINISHING AND FLYING!!!! mine but I've yet to fly in one. I'd also love to look at the fit and finish of one. I'm out of Perry KPXE if you're ever over this way, give me a shout. 478*threenineseven7885

 

[Rodo1fo]

Thanks for all the replies. If anyone has more advice, please chime in. You all bring up some very valid points. The Velocity is definitely a niche airframe with a unique look and flight characteristics. The fiberglass work doesn't necessarily scare me but that could be because I haven't experienced it firsthand. Velocity's due land faster and require more runway but I've seen a few pictures of not good landings with Velocity's and the majority of them are completely survivable, probably a byproduct of all the foam and fiberglass that creates a pod around the occupants. I will say that from my research Velocity has a fairly robust builder forum with VOBA but as more people have started and completed RVs I think the support in the RV world is more substantial. That also comes with a higher chance of occasionally getting info that isn't great so I'll need to weed through recommendations as I ask more questions.

The consensus so far is keep the controls stock. I actually like this idea as I don't really want to add complexity to the build where I don't have to, but I will need to get my wife in a -10 so she can see the control stick is a non-issue. By making hers removeable I'd get the best of both worlds for her and I.

As far as planned upgrades at the moment. I see no need personally to add a BRS. From what I can tell you can recover from a stall in a -10 and my understanding on the reasoning to add the BRS into the Cirrus was because of concerns with a difficult to recover stall but I have no experience with the Cirrus.

A/C sounds need but also like another thing I'd likely not add unless its a minimal weight/space thing. As the goal is to make a cross country flyer I'd wager once you get up high the temps are cool enough a simple Naca scoop fed to a couple air vents would suffice. Please let me know if I'm off base.

I'd likely add things like an AOA indicator, external port for a battery tender, and maybe a couple camera mounts if I ever want to film my flights.

I'm already on the FATPNW page and will look at the other one recommended.

The insurance concern is real. I test flew a Dragonfly before we bought the Colt and when I got a quote for that plane it was through the roof. The dragonfly was also built heavy and its rigging was way off with a bit of a Frankenstein setup so it was easy for us to pass on it. It is the only time I felt like kissing the ground after safely exiting the plane. I don't blame the Dragonfly plans on this, I blame the builder who knew he built a heavy plane and compensated it with a motor twice the size of what was recommended by the plans.

I'll keep my eye out for deals on tools but think a trip to Aurora will happen before a decision is made as we would want to ensure we are getting into something that will be supported through the build.

https://www.aerocentro.com.br/copia-rv-10

Regarding the sidestick, this Brazilian company developed this system years ago. I'm not saying you should change the joystick, just saying that this product existed or exists.

 

[WKumley]

Building a 10 while active duty and moving around surely won't be easy. I've helped a couple other active duty folks (from NC) acquire flying RV''s to fill the gap until they are ready to build, and that made life simple and provided a traveling machine from deployment base back to NC . One was an RV-8 (AF pilot, based Fla then NM, now OK), the other an RV-4 . Have you given that any thought? Where in NC ? I'm at 8A7 Twin Lakes near Winston-Salem.

Part of the thought process is to use this duty station to research as much as possible and start building at my next job as it could be my final tour. I've got 28 years of service now and this job will take me to my 30 year mark unless I get an opportunity to get another job early.

 

[CJT]

My wife and I are in the researching stage of looking for a suitable 4 seat experimental to build that will meet our goals and the RV-10 has recently been added to my list. She wants to see one in person first but I feel like finding an RV-10 will be easier than finding a BD-4c (another plane that was on my radar for a while). A little more background: We own and fly a Piper Colt and love it, other than its speed for cross country and the fact that it limits us to only us with no additional passengers. I'm active duty Navy and started my career as an avionics technician which has helped with the Colt as I was able to do my own avionics upgrade and the local shop at the time signed off my work. They also offered me a job but I wasn't ready to commit to that since I knew the Navy would move me again, and they did. We want a plane that will work as a cross country platform with additional seats so we can have more flexibility to take friends with us on occasion.

Planes that made the short list:
Velocity - her favorite. I've come around to the idea but don't like the landing/takeoff distances required and the only real baggage area to speak of is either the back seat or the small arm wells you can build into the wing strakes. But you're using passenger space even if you have something small enough to fit there. She really likes the looks and the center stick or dual sidestick option as it frees up her legroom. We've sat in a few and she was a passenger in a friends Velocity twin.

BD-4c - my favorite until we talked to Jim Bede Jr at Sun n Fun this year. The conversation shifted rather quickly to him wanting to sell the company. This resulted in a lot of concern for support and parts availability if we ever need it. Granted, if we build it, we would likely be able to get the material and fix it without ordering something from BD directly. They also failed to have a 4c at Sun n Fun like they hoped for earlier in the year so we were not able to see one in person.

RV-10 - recent addition to my list as it meets our goals and is effectively the same cost as a Velocity. It also looks a lot nicer than the BD.

Questions I now have about the RV-10.
Is the listed total weight/useful load accurate on the website? I've seen plenty of experimental aircraft that end up quite a bit different than the published numbers on weight. I understand the builder impacts this a lot with choice of interior finish, engine, mods, etc... but if you stick to the plans can you expect to see published numbers?

Has anyone considered a center stick option or sidesticks? Is it even needed? As we haven't sat in or flown in a RV-10 yet this may be a non-issue but I'm curious of the options. I could also probably make the copilot control stick removeable as I've seen that done with other airplanes with control sticks. From what I've seen so far, the center tunnel in the RV is loaded with other stuff so changing to a center stick between the seats may not even be feasible.

I've got a small old air compressor (10-12 gallon) and imagine I'll need an upgrade in the setup. Is there a recommended size/cfm combo for building an RV? I doubt I'll paint the plane myself and that is at the end so the big demand tools I can think of are the drill and rivet gun.

Last, is anyone in the Pacific Norhtwest with an RV-10 that they'd be willing to let us look at and pick your brain? We're already talking about visiting the factory soon-ish but would like to talk to owners to get their own pros/cons about the plane. We are based at 0S9 in Jefferson County Washington across the Puget Sound from Seattle.

I have built my RV10, with super help from Synergy air south, I could finish in 2 years, but you know what, a guy built Sling in just 3 months, well I will surely be lynched on this site, but Vans need to learn from sling, their build process uses pop rivets, making it easier, their fiberglass work is super easy, they provide excellent interior finish, agree it is slower, cabin is bit smaller, has less powerful engine, but consumes less fuel too. Yes it’s like comparing oranges and apples, but it’s worth looking at

 

[WKumley]

a guy built Sling in just 3 months

Was that a solo build? At the factory with factory help? Quickbuild parts? I've seen stories of people building Experimental aircraft in record time, but it usually involves more money or lots of friends willing to help with a deadline set in place to meet a goal. I think Flightchops built an RV with lots of help in a summer. It wasn't a 10, but still an RV. The Sling looks nice, but I'd have to see one in person and go for a flight in one and decide if the slower speed is worth the reduced build time. It is entirely possible this becomes the retirement project to keep me busy after I get out of the Navy and if that's the case, long days in the garage won't really be a concern. In a perfect world, we will begin the build while I'm in the Navy at my last duty station but that could also depend on the likelihood that my last duty station is a place we want to settle down and purchase a house.

 

[Richard Connell]

I have built my RV10, with super help from Synergy air south, I could finish in 2 years, but you know what, a guy built Sling in just 3 months, well I will surely be lynched on this site, but Vans need to learn from sling, their build process uses pop rivets, making it easier, their fiberglass work is super easy, they provide excellent interior finish, agree it is slower, cabin is bit smaller, has less powerful engine, but consumes less fuel too. Yes it’s like comparing oranges and apples, but it’s worth looking at

I’ve helped a buddy build a TSi and done heaps of flying with him in it and on trips with me flying the 10.
In reality there is no practical difference in terms of speed. Trip time differences between it and a 10 for the average flight is measured in minutes. They are quite quick up high due to the turbo. Fuel burn I’d say is a wash in the flight levels. Sure it sips less down low, but it’s slow at low altitudes.

The difference is useful load. If you want to carry 4 pax and any luggage then you will be leaving a fuel behind (maybe a lot).
4 larger pax or 4 pax and long non stop trips will be a challenge.
So it all comes down to your mission. If you only ever plan to fly around with 2 people and lots of junk and want the flexibility to occasionally take extra pax then a Sling is worth at least considering.

The build documentation is very good.
Pop vs solid I don’t think is that big a deal. They’re all quick builds anyway. They’re quicker to build because they’re simpler, smaller, lighter and have less parts plus a bolt on FWF.

 

[CJT]

Was that a solo build? At the factory with factory help? Quickbuild parts? I've seen stories of people building Experimental aircraft in record time, but it usually involves more money or lots of friends willing to help with a deadline set in place to meet a goal. I think Flightchops built an RV with lots of help in a summer. It wasn't a 10, but still an RV. The Sling looks nice, but I'd have to see one in person and go for a flight in one and decide if the slower speed is worth the reduced build time. It is entirely possible this becomes the retirement project to keep me busy after I get out of the Navy and if that's the case, long days in the garage won't really be a concern. In a perfect world, we will begin the build while I'm in the Navy at my last duty station but that could also depend on the likelihood that my last duty station is a place we want to settle down and purchase a house.

One tech and expert builder, quick build