What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Qualifications to fly a -10

U

usafape

Member
I am not sure if this is the right place to post this (sorry for the newbie mistake if it's not). I am very interested in starting a -10 build next year. I have quite a bit of fabrication skills from car building but I also have no flying experience (oh boy). I plan on starting the process next month and I wanted to know the qualifications needed to fly this plane. My understanding is that this plane is considered high performance and it can be a hand full. My basic training will be on the C172 but I have a coworker who may let me rent his Piper Archer for a good price after I get my PPL license. Would that be a good platform to train on? How many hours would you think I'd be ready?
I figure it will take me about 5 years to build the -10 so I have 5 years of training before I even touch this plane. What are your thoughts/recommendations? I want to make sure I do things right. After all, I plan on taking my family with it.

On another note, I'd be interested in trying a -10 in the mean time. Would anybody in the Austin area be interested on doing a discovery flight with my family? I'd obviously pay for the time and fuel.

Mods, please move it if I posted in the wrong place.
 
Fabio, I have a friend who did this exact thing.

Started building a 10 before he even started pilot training.

Got his transition training in the 10 before finishing his PPL.

After passing his check ride and getting his license, jumped in the 10 and did his phase 1.

Not the best plan of action IMHO, but he did it and has been happily flying the 10 for close to 4 years now-------------so it is possible.

You might want to contact Alex and talk to him about your plans, he will be a good source of info for you. http://www.rvtraining.com/
 
Last edited:
A C172 and a PA-28 Archer have almost the same performance so it’s a really a Chevy-Ford kind of comparison –in this case high wing vs low wing. In the end it won’t make a bit of difference which one you train in so I’d go with whichever one was the cheaper to rent. The RV-10 is a High Performance plane which is defined by the FARs as an aircraft with greater than 200HP. As such it takes additional ground and flight training with a log book endorsement stating you are proficient to operate an HP aircraft (in my case it was very similar to the type of training you’d receive on a rental checkout--IOW in most cases just a couple of hours). In any event, the RV-10 is easy to fly it’s just a little more complex to operate, but well within most pilot’s ability, even low time ones.

To add to what Mike said, although others have built aircraft without first being a pilot, what you need to factor in is it’s difficult to build and fly (much less train) at the same time from both a time and money perspective. I highly recommend you pick one and complete it before attempting to tackle the other. And of the two I’d learn to fly first. YMMV....
 
Last edited:
I guess the term "handful" depends a lot on perspective, but in terms of aircraft handling, the entire RV line is known to be very benign. Sporty, yes; handful, not a chance.

This discussion came up a few months ago and some of the members here made passionate arguments in favor of getting the PPL in a "real" trainer and then "working up" to the -10. And then they were laid flat when a gal jumped in and told the story that she took all of her training/checkride (IIRC) in the -10 and loved every minute of it.

That said, training in the -10 will work for many, but trying to also flight test an airplane you built is setting yourself up for trouble. The flight test aspect kind of drives you toward having a PPL first, then working into the -10 in Phase 2. In that case, I would think that ANY private pilot can handle a -10.
 
It's a pussycat.

The RV-10 has to be the easiest of all Van's airplanes to fly...a real pussycat.

Other than needing a good bit of right rudder on takeoff, it's a gem of an airplane and very easy to fly and land.

Best,
 
Okay, I'll be the bearer of bad news. These days pilot requirements are set by insurance companies. Five years ago it was different, and there is no predicting what it will be like five years from now. But currently, pilots with less than about 250 hours of time are being sent to high risk pools, and are being given very high quotes. One person with 160 hours was quoted well over $10K per year, and with no phase one coverage.
So my advice is, if your finances dictate that you have insurance, then budget time and money to have 200 hours of time in a 172, plus another 50 hours in a plane with over 200 HP, by the time you finish. Use the time to get an instrument rating, that will help with the insurance rates.
If you do not need insurance, then, yes, you can fly the ten with a new PP license and some transition training. Only issue is the speed - it is easy for inexperienced pilots to get behind the airplane.

PS As a new guy, let me mention that if someone offers a ride, it is of course good form to offer to pay for the gas. But it is against the law to do more than "share operatong expenses", so I would encourage you to keep such transactions private.
 
I would use the years of build time to get the PPL in the least expensive trainer, and then get a few hours flying it around, and then start in on the Instrument Rating. In a high performance plane like the -10, I'm assuming you'll be flying cross-country, crossing various weather patterns and systems. With that kind of mission, nothing will make you safer than getting the IR.

And, your insurance rates will be less too.

EDIT: BobTurner, I see you wrote the same thing and posted while I was typing... :)
 
Last edited:
usafape said:
I am not sure if this is the right place to post this (sorry for the newbie mistake if it's not). I am very interested in starting a -10 build next year. I have quite a bit of fabrication skills from car building but I also have no flying experience (oh boy). I plan on starting the process next month and I wanted to know the qualifications needed to fly this plane. My understanding is that this plane is considered high performance and it can be a hand full. My basic training will be on the C172 but I have a coworker who may let me rent his Piper Archer for a good price after I get my PPL license. Would that be a good platform to train on? How many hours would you think I'd be ready?
I figure it will take me about 5 years to build the -10 so I have 5 years of training before I even touch this plane. What are your thoughts/recommendations? I want to make sure I do things right. After all, I plan on taking my family with it.

On another note, I'd be interested in trying a -10 in the mean time. Would anybody in the Austin area be interested on doing a discovery flight with my family? I'd obviously pay for the time and fuel.

Mods, please move it if I posted in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

You have received good advice about the hurdles you face with insurance as a low-time pilot in an RV-10.

Here is something else to consider:

At this point in time you do not know positively what type flying will appeal to you after you have accumulated a couple hundred hours. Today you see yourself hauling family around the country in a -10. But what if it turns out your family doesn't like traveling in a light plane that is subject to turbulence and weather? Or maybe you discover a light, sporty two-seater is better suited for the breakfast runs you have come to love?

If you get deep into an RV-10 project and find that the -10's mission profile no longer fits with your flying needs you will have dug a big financial hole and spent time that could have been spent gaining flight experience.

The best route is to first get your pilot's license. You will then have a better idea of how aviation fits into your lifestyle. Besides, you may find a certificated aircraft that best fits your needs. But you won't know until you have accumulated some hours.

Best wishes regardless of which route you take,
 
Thank you for the very good information. I will keep that in mind. Good point about not know what plane will best fit me and my life style.
I will keep doing what I am doing now. Researching, reading, and asking questions if I don't find an answer.
 
You might consider heading off to 52F and/or Pecan Plantation to look and talk RVs with the folks at these locations.

Might be a good learning experience for you.

Hopefully someone from these areas will extend an invitation for you to come over.
 
What I did. Purchased a C-152 to train in, obtain my PPL, and then built time in while I built. Flying isn't cheap no matter what you do but for me, ownership allowed me to have a lot of flexibility in scheduling my training and just being able to jump in and go somewhere or fly the pattern when I felt like it and had time. I have around 340 hours in it and a few other planes. Like Pierre said, it takes a lot more right rudder than the traditional trainer on take-off and there is some additional work load with the C/S prop, but my transition training with Alex gave me the experience and confidence for first flight. You will need at least 200 hours of PIC and a HP endorsement for any form of reasonable insurance.
 
I may end up doing that. My inexperience is already showing up. What do you mean by right rudder? does it have to do with the torque?
Also, what does PIC mean?
 
I would recommend going to your local flight training place and getting set up with some lessons. Get to the solo point before you even purchase the preview plans. Lots of people realize that flying doesn't fit them or their lifestyle.

By the time you solo you'll have a much better understanding on what you want from aviation.
 
strictly speaking torque exerts a rolling moment on the plane.
The spiraling slip stream hits the vertical stabilizer during takeoff and exerts a yaw moment to the left. In a climb (nose high) the propeller blades are no longer symmetric with respect to the airflow, with the downward moving blade having a higher airspeed and higher angle of attack, leading again to a left yaw moment (this is called "P factor").
IMHO the -10 requires no more right rudder for these things than a 172 does.
 
Sam Buchanan said:
Today you see yourself hauling family around the country in a -10. But what if it turns out your family doesn't like traveling in a light plane that is subject to turbulence and weather?
Click to expand...

This.

Back when I was learning to fly and planning on buying a nice little spamcan and flying around with friends and family, I had the full support of those people who said they would be eager to go flying with me.

Then once I got my PP-ASEL and a couple hundred hours logged as PIC, and then bought my first plane, a Piper Cherokee... these grand delusions I had in my head of going on all these flying adventures with family and friends were shattered.

I couldn't get any of them into a small plane if I stuck a gun to their heads. It turns out that only folks who want to go flying around in small planes are other "airplane people". I found out that non-airplane-people, even your family and closest friends, are generally terrified of small airplanes, and especially of homebuilt airplanes, and the only thing that ever changes them is if they learn to fly themselves and become "airplane people". The harsh lesson I learned is that people either have a passion for aviation, or they're scared to death of it. There seems to be mostly vacuum in between those two ends of that spectrum.

Now over 15 years, and some 1200 hours later, probably 98% of my flying is solo... so I sold the Cherokee and got an RV-6. I now fly as frequently as I can afford the fuel to do so, along with friends (all "airplane people")... but it turns out that we're all each in our own separate RV ... a terribly inefficient way to fly, but sure is a lot of fun :D

BTW, I've flown a friend's RV-10 which I helped him build, and it's big, roomy, comfortable, fast, and can burn a lot of fuel... thus is best when flown as a long cross-country people-hauler. I thought it was easier to fly than the Cherokee but you do need to get the training necessary to manage a big engine. I didn't really think it was a "handful" of airplane to fly at all... now the little 2-seat RV-6 can definitely be a "handful" since things can happen so quickly in it.
 
Last edited:
Neal@F14 said:
This.

Back when I was learning to fly and planning on buying a nice little spamcan and flying around with friends and family, I had the full support of those people who said they would be eager to go flying with me.

Then once I got my PP-ASEL and a couple hundred hours logged as PIC, and then bought my first plane, a Piper Cherokee... these grand delusions I had in my head of going on all these flying adventures with family and friends were shattered.

I couldn't get any of them into a small plane if I stuck a gun to their heads. It turns out that only folks who want to go flying around in small planes are other "airplane people". I found out that non-airplane-people, even your family and closest friends, are generally terrified of small airplanes, and especially of homebuilt airplanes, and the only thing that ever changes them is if they learn to fly themselves and become "airplane people". The harsh lesson I learned is that people either have a passion for aviation, or they're scared to death of it. There seems to be mostly vacuum in between those two ends of that spectrum.

Now over 15 years, and some 1200 hours later, probably 98% of my flying is solo... so I sold the Cherokee and got an RV-6. I now fly as frequently as I can afford the fuel to do so, along with friends (all "airplane people")... but it turns out that we're all each in our own separate RV ... a terribly inefficient way to fly, but sure is a lot of fun :D

BTW, I've flown a friend's RV-10 which I helped him build, and it's big, roomy, comfortable, fast, and can burn a lot of fuel... thus is best when flown as a long cross-country people-hauler. I thought it was easier to fly than the Cherokee but you do need to get the training necessary to manage a big engine. I didn't really think it was a "handful" of airplane to fly at all... now the little 2-seat RV-6 can be a "handful" since things can happen so quickly in it.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you on that. My wife, though, seems to be interested. She did ask if she can take the classes too. But this could all change the time she goes in a small plane and it gets bumpy.
 
BobTurner said:
strictly speaking torque exerts a rolling moment on the plane.
The spiraling slip stream hits the vertical stabilizer during takeoff and exerts a yaw moment to the left. In a climb (nose high) the propeller blades are no longer symmetric with respect to the airflow, with the downward moving blade having a higher airspeed and higher angle of attack, leading again to a left yaw moment (this is called "P factor").
IMHO the -10 requires no more right rudder for these things than a 172 does.
Click to expand...

Yes, the term "torque" is constantly misapplied as a catch-all for both slipstream and P-factor effects. I thinks it's worth describing the effects properly if we truly have an interest in educating. In general, the only pilots who need to deal with true torque issues are those performing certain zero (and near zero) airspeed aerobatic maneuvers, and also pilots of certain WWII fighter planes. I've never noticed true torque issues in GA airplanes while operating in non-aerobatic flight.
 
Last edited:
Definitely make sure your spouse is fully on-board and supportive of aviation. I've known of more than one marriage that fell apart as the airplanes were getting built.

I also know of one fellow whose wife was at first very afraid of small planes, then took lessons and got her PP-ASEL... now he hardly ever gets to fly his own plane anymore :p
(she's a better pilot too, hope he's not reading this)
 
luddite42 said:
Yes, the term "torque" is constantly misapplied as a catch-all for both slipstream and P-factor effects. I thinks it's worth describing the effects properly if we truly have an interest in educating. In general, the only pilots who need to deal with true torque issues are those performing certain zero (and near zero) airspeed aerobatic maneuvers, and also pilots of certain WWII fighter planes. I've never noticed true torque issues in GA airplanes while operating in non-aerobatic flight.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the education. I read this page and found quite interesting. I am an engineer so this amazes me. I love to learne and understand the science behind it.
http://www.qmfc.org/school/asym.htm


Neal@F14 said:
Definitely make sure your spouse is fully on-board and supportive of aviation. I've known of more than one marriage that fell apart as the airplanes were getting built.

I also know of one fellow whose wife was at first very afraid of small planes, then took lessons and got her PP-ASEL... now he hardly ever gets to fly his own plane anymore :p
(she's a better pilot too, hope he's not reading this)
Click to expand...

I hope neither happens to me:D
 
BobTurner said:
Okay, I'll be the bearer of bad news. These days pilot requirements are set by insurance companies. Five years ago it was different, and there is no predicting what it will be like five years from now. But currently, pilots with less than about 250 hours of time are being sent to high risk pools, and are being given very high quotes. One person with 160 hours was quoted well over $10K per year, and with no phase one coverage.
So my advice is, if your finances dictate that you have insurance, then budget time and money to have 200 hours of time in a 172, plus another 50 hours in a plane with over 200 HP, by the time you finish. Use the time to get an instrument rating, that will help with the insurance rates.
If you do not need insurance, then, yes, you can fly the ten with a new PP license and some transition training. Only issue is the speed - it is easy for inexperienced pilots to get behind the airplane.

PS As a new guy, let me mention that if someone offers a ride, it is of course good form to offer to pay for the gas. But it is against the law to do more than "share operatong expenses", so I would encourage you to keep such transactions private.
Click to expand...

I have been providing RV-10 Transition Training for about 3 years now, and I concur with BobTurner concerning insurance. There has been a real shift in the ability of low time pilots to get affordable insurance in the RV-10. Anybody in the insurance business know what is driving this trend?
 
usafape said:
I tend to agree with you on that. My wife, though, seems to be interested. She did ask if she can take the classes too. But this could all change the time she goes in a small plane and it gets bumpy.
Click to expand...

Stop worrying about which/if RV... Get started with your pilot training immediately! AND (if you can afford it) do it with your wife! While you're doing that, continue your research about building/owning an airplane. I promise, either way, it will change your life. I just so happen to know some people in your area that would be happy to talk your ear off while flying.
 
scard said:
Stop worrying about which/if RV... Get started with your pilot training immediately! AND (if you can afford it) do it with your wife! While you're doing that, continue your research about building/owning an airplane. I promise, either way, it will change your life. I just so happen to know some people in your area that would be happy to talk your ear off while flying.
Click to expand...

I don't think I can afford both licenses at the same time. My thinking was to get mine first, start flying and then use our plane for her to get hours.
 
Family feud

If you follow that route your insurance policy will say only you can fly the plane, unless of course you pay a lot more money to them. Catch 22.
 
Plan B

First, keep in mind that the cost of a private license is not negligible, but it is only a fraction of the cost of an RV10. I presume you've looked into this enough to know that Vans airframe kit is only about a third of the total cost. Engine, prop, avionics are all expensive.

Plan B. If you can get to 250 hours you would meet the minimum for an instructor certificate. With that in-hand, you might find an insurance company that would insure both of you, as long as you were always in the plane, for not too much more.
 
usafape said:
I don't think I can afford both licenses at the same time. My thinking was to get mine first, start flying and then use our plane for her to get hours.
Click to expand...

That's OK, just have come along on a few training flights. Nothing involving stalls or unusual attitudes though. Maybe the intro flight would be a good time. She will sit in back and observe. Very quickly you will find out if she is "in to it".

As a side note to the 1, 2, or 3 seat option, when I lived in Charlotte, NC a number of us RV owners had talked about building an RV-10 and owning it as a club. The idea was that to be a member you had to have a two seat RV and that the -10 would be available for family trips. We didn't want it working that someone took the -10 for every flight but only when needed. We also figured it would take about 10 people to make it worthwhile. Just another thought for you. Heck, even getting 10 RV owners to go in on a PA28 or C127 would be a good deal for the few times you would use the extra seats.
 
BobTurner said:
First, keep in mind that the cost of a private license is not negligible, but it is only a fraction of the cost of an RV10. I presume you've looked into this enough to know that Vans airframe kit is only about a third of the total cost. Engine, prop, avionics are all expensive.

Plan B. If you can get to 250 hours you would meet the minimum for an instructor certificate. With that in-hand, you might find an insurance company that would insure both of you, as long as you were always in the plane, for not too much more.
Click to expand...

Plano B seems interesting. I haven't looked at that yet. I do plan on getting IFR rating. is instructor license on top of IFR time?
 
Yes. To get an instructor license you must have an instrument rating (roughly the same cost as private) and a commercial license (fairly inexpensive except you have to rent a retractable plane, and you'll need the retractable gear again for your initial cfi test).
 
Most people have already covered most of your issues.

I can't recommend highly enough to call an insurance agent and understand all the dynamics. I know a 150hr RV-10 builder that got a five figure insurance quote with an extremely high deductible.

Tim Olson has written several good articles on the trials and tribulations of his wife getting her ppl. Here's a good place to start reading.

http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/misc/CherokeeSolo/index.html

Another data point on the spousal front. Mine won't fly in a Cherokee 180. She did do six hours in the back for one trip and one trip only. She has absolutely no problems with the RV-10. she also insisted I put in an overhead console so she could have fresh air blowing on her face. Definitely get her a ride in a whatever you choose before you start your build. You're going to need that support.
 
First things First!

Didn't see it mentioned thus far but have you gotten a medical certificate? You will need to obtain at least a third class medical certificate to pursue your PPL and then to pilot anything beyond an LSA.

Other than that I would recommend obtaining your PPL before starting a build. Both take an astronomical commitment. I got sideways at one point... Started flying lessons in 2006, got excited about RV's in 2007 and bought the avery tool kit. Then realized I should make sure I can get my PPL before up and building a plane right?:eek: I never even opened the boxes until finishing my PPL in 2010, IFR in 2011 and started building in 2012. As much time building this plane takes up I couldn't imagine also trying to learn to fly concurrently. Although some have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top