RV-10 vs. ?????

[Aerosport1]

One thing to remember about the insurance. RV-10s are insured for usually 150-200k and almost all new avionics, engine and interior, airframe.The Bonanza is 80-120k and almost everything is older. And just price out some parts on the bonanza. Its like playing Russian roulette each annual. It might be good for a couple but it will get catch up.
My RV-10 is $1000.00 more per year for insurance then my 1973 Piper challenger Cost. The piper was insured for 65k and RV-10 180K.
new versus old. Apples to oranges
I was ready to by a Bonanza before I decided to build a 10. Really glad I did the 10. FWIW


Geoff

 

[WA5ZXU]

I have been lurking on VAF for several weeks and have been following this thread with interest. I am trying to figure out if it makes sense to build an RV-10 to replace the 1982 Mooney that I currently own. I have always wanted to build, but never had the time, but recently retired, so now have the time.

My turbo charged Mooney gives great performance: 165 knots at 10.5 gph at 17,000ft ( or 175 knots at 24,000') with a useful load of 900 pounds. However; it is a 30 year old airframe with 3700hrs total time and parts wear out and Mooney parts are expensive, almost as much as Bonanza parts. The expected expense of maintaining the Mooney over the next ten years will pay for a large part of the cost of an RV-10. Below are the points that I am considering:

AIRFRAME
Although I try to do as much maintenance as the FARs allow, I am not an A&P, so have to pay one to work on it and it seems like something is always breaking. Many of those repairs, I feel I could do and probably do it better than my A&P, since I can take my time and don't have to make a profit like my mechanic. My annuals have been costing about $1.5K to $2.0K/yr and I have been spending about $5K/yr in repairs. I looked into getting my A&P license, but going to A&P school here would cost between $20K to $40K and take two years, going full time. In about the same time frame and for the same cost, I could assemble a large portion of the RV-10 airframe.

ENGINE
The Mooney's engine is about 900 hrs SMOH and Continental engines often need a top OH around 1000 to 1200hrs. I expect that will cost $10K - $12K. Additionally flying 150 hrs per year, the Mooney's engine will be past TBO in about six years. A field over haul will cost about ~$45K+R&R or Factory Reman ($53K) +R&R or Factory New ($62K) + R&R). Any of those options would pretty much buy an new Lycoming IO540 for the RV-10.

AVIONICS
It could cost $15K or more to repair the Mooney's 30 year old KFC-200 autopilot, which would more than cover installing a three panel Dynon or Garmin EFIS in the RV-10, a couple of times. The non-certified EFIS's appear to have far greater capabilities than what I have and I could never afford the cost to install certified avionics in the Mooney. I will also need to replace the KT76A xpdr with an ADS-B compatible before 2020. At some point Garmin will stop supporting the GNC530W and I be forced to upgrade. So what I am likely to spend on avionics repair and upgrades in the Mooney will pay for a nice IFR panel in the RV-10.

PAINT/INTERIOR
The Mooney's 20 year old interior probably rates a 6-7 and would cost $8K-$10K to replace. My wife, who is very supportive of my airplane addiction, would like this sooner than later. The paint looks good from 20 ft away, but it is showing it's wear. A new paint job will cost $10K-$16K. Those costs would pay for a nice interior and paint on an RV-10.

BUILD AN RV-10?
The RV-10 appears to give about the same performance as my Mooney but with a little more useful load, but a higher fuel burn. It would be all new and maintenance costs should be lower. Replacement parts from Van's seem cheaper than parts from Mooney, provided the factory remains open to produce replacement parts. With the repairman's certificate, I should be able to do all the maintenance and annual inspections myself, greatly reducing those expenses as compared to the Mooney.

Besides the RV-10's fuel burn, the only thing that appear to be more expensive than the Mooney is insurance. I am currently paying $1250/yr for liability ($1M/$100K) and $110K hull coverage. I have seen other mentioning $2500 to $3500 for insurance, but part of that might be in the higher hull values of an RV-10.

What I don't know is the resale value of an RV-10 versus a certified a/c and the ease of selling it. Seems the market for an experimental-home built would be smaller than for a certified a/c? The other unknown is the residual liability of the buyer's family coming after the builder should there be an accident. Probably not a factor with a certified a/c.

I would invite anyone who has owned a certified a/c and then built, operated and maintained a RV-10 to comment on any of the above.

 

[Mike D]

Alan, seems you provide the best antidotes as the great reasons to buy or build an experimental. The cost of maintaining or upgrading a certified is well out of my desire of things to spend money on.

In my search for a nice 4-place, I ran across a SR20 for $65k. The reason for such a low price is the maintenance needed. It needs a repack of the shoot and a crack in the mount. Such a shame that this would reduce the price nearly $100k.

So my thought for now is to find a -10 to build.

 

[Mike S]

Welcome to VAF!

I have been lurking on VAF for several weeks

Alan,welcome aboard

My turbo charged Mooney gives great performance: 165 knots at 10.5 gph at 17,000ft ( or 175 knots at 24,000')

Here is my 10 at 13.5 altitude, flowing 9.5. Ground speed is 212 MPH/183K. Winds aloft were a tailwind most likely, but I have no idea how much.

Sorry, but at the time I did not have the TAS set in the readout, I was running it in the MPG mode------was getting 22.2 MPG.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

I would invite anyone who has owned a certified a/c and then built, operated and maintained a RV-10 to comment on any of the above.

Alan, a lot of the cost issues you point out are true of any airplane of age. In 10 years, today's new RV-10 owners will be shelling out big bucks to repair or replace their G430's or their 10" redundant EFIS's. Some will need that expensive top overhaul you mentioned and some will be at TBO, needing a $30-40K rebuild (with accessories).

All you're doing with a new aircraft is delaying those expenses a decade (or whatever). So unless your window is short (and if you're looking to build, it isn't), the financial argument for a -10 isn't as good as you make it sound.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

Alan, seems you provide the best antidotes as the great reasons to buy or build an experimental. The cost of maintaining or upgrading a certified is well out of my desire of things to spend money on.

In my search for a nice 4-place, I ran across a SR20 for $65k. The reason for such a low price is the maintenance needed. It needs a repack of the shoot and a crack in the mount. Such a shame that this would reduce the price nearly $100k.

So my thought for now is to find a -10 to build.

" It needs a repack of the shoot and a crack in the mount. "

Wow...at first I thought that was some of that clever Aussie slang!

Then I noticed Michael was from TX so had to think about it a little more. Think I have it figgered out now.

 

[rocketman1988]

Wow

Please take one other thing into consideration when considering cost....your time.

Let's assume you make 50 bucks an hour and the cost of your build is 150K and 2000 hours (another 100K) which in reality makes the build cost 250K. If you build, don't forget to add in the cost of rentals or maintaining another plane if you desire to keep you skill levels up.

So, do you figure in the cost of your time when you golf? Mow the grass? Eat dinner? Point is, if you count all the time as money, the best thing you can do is nothing.

If you buy a flying plane, it will keep the cost at 150K and you get the advantage of purchasing a plane that most folks cannot get their building time cost back Work some OT and you can have it paid for unlike spending the time to build. Of course you don't get the same satisfaction as a "you built it".

Do you really think that you can keep the cost "at 150k"? A friend bought a nice 210 for $145k and used that same argument. When they reached $225k they stopped counting. Then there is the $2000+ annuals...if nothing is wrong...

Then again, if you don't have anything better to do or want to forego other things you are interested in, build. Just remember you can't get time back.

Are you applying that same logic to everything you do? You know, maybe golf, hunting, cars, dinner, mowing the grass, etc. You can't get that time back, either. Some of us build because they want to, not because they "have nothing better to do". If you are building because you have "nothing better to do", I don't think I would want to fly your airplane...

Best piece of financial advice I can give you is to consider the potential price of a divorce if you build. Unfortunately, taking time away from a marriage has the potential of a much higher price tag than building or buying. Ask yourself if your marriage can stand the time expense. There is a reason that airplanes are know as Aluminum Mistresses.

Rule #1 is NEVER take financial advice from a pilot ;^}. Seriously, though, building without the spouse on board is definitely bad. It would be prudent to discuss the process with the spouse prior to beginning...who knows, maybe they will discover a new hobby.

There are 2 things I have learned about this hobby (really hobbies in general):

1. You cannot justify it.

2. There is never a good time.

I, however, am not going to be the guy that turns 65 and says, "I wish that I had done that."

Build on!
__________________

 

[aerhed]

A penny saved is a dollar earned. 2000 hours of wages gets a big chomp from the taxman.

 

[Toobuilder]

I think something that gets lost in these types of discussions is the fact that some regard airplanes as a "hobby", and some as a lifestyle. Some of us are in both. I need a Rocket to fly, but I sure don't want to build one. OTOH, I'm happily building a tube and fabric, heavy hauler. The Rocket is a transportation machine, so yes, I would count any time spent on construction as a financial impact. The other project is simply for enjoyment, so it is not taking any of my "spare" time.

In other words, I get paid to go to work because I'd much rather be doing something else with my time. Same way with a Rocket - I'd much rather be flying one than working on one - so I would count the build time as a financial loss.

Now, to tie to this thread, I'd bet that most people considering a -10 are more interested in the end product than the journey getting there. Yes, there are those that would not trade the time building for anything, but I'll bet a bunch of you would gladly buy "your" -10 already built from someone else (especially if that someone donated all their labor for free).

In the end, the -10 is a serious machine that falls a little outside the "hobby" category. If you just want to kill time in the shop, you'd crank out a few RV-3's.

 

[rocketman1988]

"...In the end, the -10 is a serious machine that falls a little outside the "hobby" category..."

Yoda would say, "Size matters not...".

He also said, "Do or do not, there is no try..."

I am building a -10, and yes, it is ONE of my hobbies. The main one, right now, but a hobby, nonetheless...

 

[WA5ZXU]

Kyle,

I agree there are costs that apply equally to all aircraft and at some point even a new aircraft will need an engine overhaul and avionics upgrade. However, won't it cheaper to overhaul the engine of an experimental a/c, since the builder will be able to reinstall the overhauled engine, whereas the non-A&P owner of a certified a/c will be at the mercy of his mechanic for the install? This assumes you don't do the actual overhaul the engine yourself, which is not an option with a certified a/c.

In regards to avionics, with experimental you have the option of replacing an obsolete or unsupported piece of equipment with the latest and greatest. That is not the case in trying to retrofit the latest electronics into a certified a/c. You can buy a brand new non-certified EFIS for less than the cost to overhaul a King mechanical HSI. The spinning gyro instruments in my plane will wear out and need to be overhauled, but does an AHRS ever "wear" out?

I may well be twisting the data to get the answer that I think I want; however the reason I posted was to hear from others with a different viewpoint. So thanks for your comments.

Alan, a lot of the cost issues you point out are true of any airplane of age. In 10 years, today's new RV-10 owners will be shelling out big bucks to repair or replace their G430's or their 10" redundant EFIS's. Some will need that expensive top overhaul you mentioned and some will be at TBO, needing a $30-40K rebuild (with accessories).

All you're doing with a new aircraft is delaying those expenses a decade (or whatever). So unless your window is short (and if you're looking to build, it isn't), the financial argument for a -10 isn't as good as you make it sound.

 

[DaleB]

There are 2 things I have learned about this hobby (really hobbies in general):

1. You cannot justify it.

2. There is never a good time.

Both of those apply to children also (says the guy with five of them). So does "If you wait until you can afford it (or them) you'll never do it."

I, however, am not going to be the guy that turns 65 and says, "I wish that I had done that."

AMEN, brother!

 

[Jesse]

At the risk of saying something that has already been said, I would say the closest airplane for your mission besides the RV-10 is a C-182. I would say the C-182, 177 or 210 RG's, but maintenance will go way up on those, although they would be faster. IMHO, not worth the extra maintenance, which would go for the Mooneys and Bonanzas also. You can get 140+ Kts out of a 182 for under $100,000, but short of that, the RV-10 is the best for your criteria. With the short field need, that leaves out the Cirrus, Velocity, etc. Staying away from certified leaves mainly the RV-10. Yeah, there's the Team Tango or the Raven 500, but those would likely cost the same. You can get into a flying -10 for under $175,000 if you're not in a hurry and not picky, then you can upgrade as you have time/money.

 

[N941WR]

No one mentioned a Maule, I wonder why?

Four seats, land anywhere, OK speed, good comfort, simple, etc.

 

[Bill.Peyton]

I'll throw in my two cents.
I flew a 1980 Piper Archer for 20 years. I paid 50K and sold it for $75K. I spent a no-sh** total (including purchase and sale) of $168,000 over the twenty years I owned the plane, fuel not included in this number. This amounts to $8,400/yr. During that time I replaced the engine and all the avionics with the latest. My wife and I flew this aircraft over 3,000 hours. While it was relatively slow, 130kts on a good day, I flew to the east and west coasts multiple times, all over Canada, and to Florida more times then I remember. It served as a platform to obtain all our ratings and was indeed a hobby for us. It was an economical aircraft that was only limited in its use by it's speed, which NEVER prevented me from going anywhere.

I now have my newly built RV-10, which is an awesome fast aircraft, which I had just as much fun building as I do flying. I have invested over $175K and 4,000 hours in this aircraft. I could never have spent that kind of money or time when I was younger on a hobby.

My point is, you don't need a fast aircraft to have fun and execute your trips. Examine your budget, and let it be the deciding factor. If you can afford a -10, you will never be disappointed with its performance!

 

[Mike D]

I get the old vs. new and the cost differences due to wear and tear. So just for kicks lets discuss the new airplanes of similar class.
Cirrus SR22 or SR20
Columba 300 or 350
Vans rv-10

All can be bought completed for roughly the same $220k
But the Columbia will have a G1000 or Avidine with 2 Garmin 430s and a 330 transponder. It would be hard to beat the quality of the interior of the Columbia. And a plus for me would be no chute because it can actually get out of a spin. Also the G load limits are slightly higher than the Cirrus. And it is the fastest of the 3.

The Cirrus is more popular with almost 5 times the aircraft in the field. They have a very active community and the interior and avionics are also top notch. The good is you can buy a SR20 with glass panel well under the $200k mark.
The bad is the maintenance cost on the cutters every 6 years and the chute repack every 10 years.

The SR22 adds speed and altitude improvements over the SR20, but also adds cost.

The advantage to the RV-10 is that it is experimental and should in theory be cheaper to maintain. And you can build it your way. But I doubt you will find a -10 with a G1000 or 2-GNS430w's for $200. And even with the great resources the RV community has, I doubt you can get an interior as good as the Columbia.

So I have to ask, have the -10s grown too expensive for the market? Experimental is supposed to be significantly cheaper than certified, but not in this case.

But still looking at the 180, 182, and Navion. But those are older planes and don't have the same speed as the new planes above. But you can find a complete restored (ie. new) version for $100k.

 

[rleffler]

The advantage to the RV-10 is that it is experimental and should in theory be cheaper to maintain. And you can build it your way. But I doubt you will find a -10 with a G1000 or 2-GNS430w's for $200.

Other than it's from Garmin, why would you want to? The experimental EFIS vendors have been cleaning Garmin's clock for years. It's just been recently that Garmin woke up an recognized the market they were overlooking. I would much rather have an AFS 5000 series as my first choice and the GRT HX as a second choice. But that's just my opinion.

I have three AFS screens in my RV-10, along with a Trutrak Gemini for my fourth screen. I also have four GPS's installed. Although only one is certified (GTN650). I can assure you it cost well south of $150k to build my RV-10. If I ever decide to sell it, it will be north of $200k.

And even with the great resources the RV community has, I doubt you can get an interior as good as the Columbia.

You obviously haven't seen too many RV-10s. Deems Davis, Ernst Frietag, and Greg Hale all custom manufactured fantastic looking interiors. Many have followed Geoff Combs lead and ordered interiors from Aerosport Product Interiors. I would compare Geoff's interior with any certified manufacturer. AS I've heard Geoff say on more than one once, if you make the interior look like the interior of a top of the line auto and/or aircraft, it will help alleviate fears of some people that are afraid to fly in an experimental. As an RV-10 builder, I just wanted a nice cross country cruiser than looks great and has many amenities to meet my family's needs.

 

[ppilotmike]

Bearhawk revisited.

Again, I reiterate the Bearhawk. It meets the short field / unimproved field category, the cost category (about $100K or a little more) and carries 4 adults, baggage and full fuel. Top speed is around 150kts with a highpower engine, but also has the ability to fly slow (windows open). I think the 10 is an easier build than the Bearhawk, but it truly was a close second for me. I even took a demo ride in one at OSH. The only thing that steered me away was speed. Even though I live in Colorado, where a Bearhawk would have been an excellent performer, my family's mission is CC travel mostly. Someone else mentionned the Maule too. I think it's easy to look at the "slick" planes these days, because they are in the fore-front, but ask yourself, "what's the farthest CC I intend to make and will a few extra knots really be worth the sacrifice of the low and slow, windows open, grass strip flying experience?" It was for me, but it's something you shouldn't discount.

 

[David Paule]

Back to the OP's question, consider a, early Cessna 180, if you can accept a taildragger. Mine cruises at 145 kts without the wheel pants and 151 or a bit more with them (I never use them). It burns 11.3 gph at that speed and for local knocking around, I pull it back to about 6 gph and about 101 kts. For most of my cruising, I fly at about 140 kts and about 10.2 gph.

It definitely meets your other criteria as well.

Caveat, mine has gaps sealed and extra antennas removed. It has the 600-6 tires (I've landed on a beach with them) since tire sizes cost about 2 mph per increment.

The earlier ones like mine are fuel-limited and gross-weight limited. Mine weighs 1,617 lbs empty, holds 60 gallons, and has a 2,550 lb. gross.

There are STCs for higher gross, more power, speed mods, etc.

Dave