What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-10's, how do they fly?

K

Ken Herchuck

Member
I have been training in Piper Warriors. Due to the cost the past year I have not flown or continued training. I plan on getting back into the cockpit in 2010 for sure.

With prices the way they are I thought it would now be cheaper to buy a Warrior and rent a CFI.

I was interested in the RV10 though. I wondered if anyone had any opinion on how they flew, limitiations or exceeded expectations. What did you fly or have before you got the RV10 etc.

I would like to build and aircraft, the RV10 is what I think would be proper for me, but I also like the Velocity. I know, its the Vans Airforce page and I mention a competitor, let the abuse begin.

I see various parts and kits for sale from owners trying to sell them due to vairous issues, and will look into that when I make my decision.

Any thoughts are welcome.
 
It depends on your goal and mission.

I owned a Cherokee 180 and am building a RV-10.

If you fly less than 100 hours a year, it will be less expense to rent in most cases once you figure in all the operational costs of owning an aircraft.

They are other benefits to owning an aircraft that you can't assign a dollar value. Like it's always available when you want it, you don't have to worry about scheduling long vacations, and you don't have to worry about some dork doing something stupid to the aircraft.

Obviously, I'm highly biased towards the RV-10. I think it's one of the best 4 place aircraft on the market for the money.

The other thing that you may not have thought about is insurance. Your post indicates that you may not have your PPL yet. I would recommend calling an insurance agent before you make a decision. You may find that the insurance cost prohibitive if you are still working on your PPL. You are going to need 250-300 hours plus an instrument rating to get reasonable insurance rates on the RV-10. This is probably true on all high performance four place experimental aircraft.

I had my Cherokee for 3 years and broke even when I sold it. I'm not sure you can do that now. During that time my son got his PPL and I got my instrument rating. Because of the number of hours we both were flying, owning was cheaper than renting.

I would continue renting the Warrior while you're building if you can afford it. You may be able to find somebody to lease one to you. I'm not sure that buying one for a short term period makes sense in the current market.

Buying a used kit will save some money. However, most of your expense will be in the engine and panel. The actual kit is probably only 30-40% of a typical RV-10. Feel free to email me if you have specific follow up questions.
 
Ken Herchuck said:
II was interested in the RV10 though. I wondered if anyone had any opinion on how they flew, limitiations or exceeded expectations. What did you fly or have before you got the RV10 etc.
Click to expand...

I have only a litle time in the RV-10, but have flown a lot of different airplanes. The easiest way to describe the handling qualities of a Warrior versus an RV-10? Old Chevy Impalla versus a Jaguar Touring Sedan.....:D

Paul
 
I started building my RV-10 before I even started taking flying lessons. I did get my PPL very quickly after I started building though. I had 200 hrs, no instrument rating and my insurance for the RV-10 with $150,000 hull coverage is $3,400 a year. I would suggest buying a cheap and I mean cheap trainer plane. Start building the RV-10, get your ppl and build hours. Once you are ready for the FWF sell the cheap trainer to help finance the rest of the plane.
Now for the RV-10 versus the Velocity. It depends on your mission. The RV-10 can go just about anywhere. The velocity does need some runway and probably is a more efficient long distance traveler. I haven't heard of anybody landing a velocity on grass but I really don't know of their grass capabilities. The RV-10 is fun to fly, very roomy and can get in and out of just about any runway. I flew a Grumman Tiger for about 4 years and the RV-10 is a faster, more powerful and more agile Tiger.
 
Well Instrument rating isnt in my plans. Heck its bad enough I became a "cash cow" where I was and was really fed up with that treatment. Then when fuel hit the roof, so did costs. I know it sounds silly, but if its $135 an hour for a plane and instructor, and if I fly 6 times a week, I could be making my own plane payment.

Not into small trainers like the 150 and a Tomahawk. I got into Warriors cause I like the fit of me in it, the sightlines, the way it flies.

I think in the final analysis, even though I would have less in a RV10 build VS some of the newer planes of equal performance, I am better of getting myself a Warrior and leave it at that. Even if I drop $35 to $40 on it, and it has low airframe and smoh hours, I can fly for awhile before it needs something. Even if I put a new radio stack in it. Steam Guages work fine. Insurance was cheaper than my car for awhile, AOPA gave me a great rate for ownership.
 
Ken Herchuck said:
I have been training in Piper Warriors. Due to the cost the past year I have not flown or continued training. I plan on getting back into the cockpit in 2010 for sure.

With prices the way they are I thought it would now be cheaper to buy a Warrior and rent a CFI.

I was interested in the RV10 though. I wondered if anyone had any opinion on how they flew, limitiations or exceeded expectations. What did you fly or have before you got the RV10 etc.

I would like to build and aircraft, the RV10 is what I think would be proper for me, but I also like the Velocity. I know, its the Vans Airforce page and I mention a competitor, let the abuse begin.

I see various parts and kits for sale from owners trying to sell them due to vairous issues, and will look into that when I make my decision.

Any thoughts are welcome.
Click to expand...

Owning will most likely not be cheaper than renting. Especially if you quit flying due to costs... The worst thing you can do to a plane is not fly it.

By the time you factor in fuel ($38/hr in my cherokee 180), annual (~$1500/yr), Hangar ($350/mo here), Insurance ($850/year), plus whatever you chose to set aside per hour for maintanance, and overhaul... you will always come out cheaper letting someone else pay for all that stuff.

I spend $10,063.36 in fixed expenses annually BEFORE I EVEN TURN THE KEY. Thats 74 hours in the rented warrior.

Another option would be a flying club or partnership if you are truly looking for ways to save money and keep yourself in the air.


Convience and pride justify ownership (of certified aircraft). Just MHO. :)
 
Last edited:
Just curous - what about the Velo do you like and which model? I'd be tossing that same thing up if I was looking at a 4 passenger (RV10 vs Velo XL). I like the stall characteristics of the canard and the strength of the composite shell and it's hard to ignore the cool factor (even though by itself it may not be worth a lot). :cool:

The Velo would take longer to build than the 10, The XL kit is a little more but the cruise speeds are higher along with the runway requirements. I've heard the the 9 & 10 have stall characteristics similar to the canards in that they just do their equivilant of a pitch buck but I can't verify that since I've never actually ridden in an RV (even though I've started a 9).

The RV10 can get into more places than a canard and more importantly out of more places! The supoprt you get from the RV community is second to none.

It's a tough choice but can only be answered by determining what your mission is (the type of flying you want to do) and where you want to go. Always on a nice paved runway with some length then the Velo would be fine as well as the RV10. If backwoods and grass are your even ocassional dreams then 10 all the way. You might the Velo down on grass but you may not get it up.

Bob
 
Last edited:
You can operate an RV-10 easily off a 2000' grass strip with plenty of length to spare. Try that in a Velocity... and at best you'll need a change of trousers, at worst... well just look at the takeoff and landing distances for yourself
http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airplane-specifications.html

I've only got a tiny smidgeon of right-stick time in an RV-10 but it is as easy to fly as my Cherokee. Except it takes off and lands in less than half of the runway distance of a Cherokee and climbs like a rocketship... and it's got a pretty quick roll rate too. Nothing like an RV-4 or -6, which much more nimble than a -10, but still vastly quicker on the roll rate than a Cherokee which is only about a meager 30 degrees/second.. I've heard others compare the aileron handling of the -10 to that of a Grumman Tiger. The -10 is just heavy enough on the controls and has enough wing loading to be a great balance of stable yet sporty at the same time.

As to the speed and economy of a -10... my friends departed Oshkosh in their RV-10 three hours after I left in my Cherokee 140, and they arrived in Wichita Falls, TX 15 minutes before I did (~5 hours vs ~8 hours), and burned almost exactly the same total number of gallons of fuel.
 
Last edited:
RV10 vs Piper flight characteristics .

Ken Herchuck said:
I have been training in Piper Warriors. Due to the cost the past year I have not flown or continued training. I plan on getting back into the cockpit in 2010 for sure.

With prices the way they are I thought it would now be cheaper to buy a Warrior and rent a CFI.

I was interested in the RV10 though. I wondered if anyone had any opinion on how they flew, limitiations or exceeded expectations. What did you fly or have before you got the RV10 etc.

I would like to build and aircraft, the RV10 is what I think would be proper for me, but I also like the Velocity. I know, its the Vans Airforce page and I mention a competitor, let the abuse begin.

I see various parts and kits for sale from owners trying to sell them due to vairous issues, and will look into that when I make my decision.

Any thoughts are welcome.
Click to expand...

Quick comments/**opinions** ...
I have and fly a PA28A-181 (Archer II) and have been "checked out" in the RV10. Most of the time though, I fly an RV6.

RV10 slightly heavier in feel than the Piper if the least bit out of pitch trim. But nowhere near what the larger Pipers feel like.

RV10 significantly more responsive in roll.

RV10 feels, well , like a larger RV.

RV10 feels like a "heavier RV9A".

Take the good points of the Piper, make it more responsive and A LOT faster, with a LOT more space, along with a stick vs a yoke and you kind of have it. :)

And oh, six cylinders are a lot smoother than four.
 
Proably the XL. I realize faster means retract landing gear on that one, but I prefer fixed.

For one, its not like the "other" kit craft out there. I think Vans hits the mark on all of their products. I realize there is another composite coming out that is more like the RV9. The company was in the EAA mag, just forgetting the name of the company.

I like the technology in it, the canard, the wings, capacity on fuel and people and the performance. Not to say that its the be all end all. I thought its odd that you can only paint it white, as the fiberglass dosent like heat.

In building hotrods, we use to let the gelcoat bodies sit in the sun to cure more, and to take a final shape before building the car. So I find that odd and a concern in some respect. I think based on how it goes together I would look into either geting the wings premade, or the fuselage or both. The biggest thing though, would be to go down to the factory and scheudle a traing flight. To see if I even like the thing.

RV10 to me is like old home week, minus the stabelator. (to me the greatest invention for any aircraft) I think I would like the RV10 or recognize it.

Price wise very close.



bhassel said:
Just curous - what about the Velo do you like and which model? I'd be tossing that same thing up if I was looking at a 4 passenger (RV10 vs Velo XL). I like the stall characteristics of the canard and the strength of the composite shell and it's hard to ignore the cool factor (even though by itself it may not be worth a lot). :cool:

The Velo would take longer to build than the 10, The XL kit is a little more but the cruise speeds are higher along with the runway requirements. I've heard the the 9 & 10 have stall characteristics similar to the canards in that they just do their equivilant of a pitch buck but I can't verify that since I've never actually ridden in an RV (even though I've started a 9).

The RV10 can get inot more places than a canard and more importantly out of more places! The supoprt you get from the RV community is second to none.

It's a tough choice but can only be answered by determining what your mission is (the type of flying you want to do) and where you want to go. Always on a nice paved runway with some length then the Velo would be fine as well as the RV10. If backwoods and grass are your even ocassional dreams then 10 all the way. You might the Velo down on grass but you may not get it up.

Bob
Click to expand...
 
RV-10

Ken, I am a RV-10 checkout pilot and have flown over 55 type aircraft and over 15,000 hours. I have flown all the Piper, Mooney and Grumman line. By far the RV-10 is superior to these aircraft. It flies very easily, carries a great load, stable, mild stalls and handles crosswends well. It is now my most favorite aircraft. Call me if you want to discuss it more. c 210-887-4546.

Les
 
I'd install a toilet paper holder....

...if I owned a Velocity:eek: A friend of mine has an RG at the Coast and I finally got a ride in his absolutely drop-dead gorgeous airplane with its show quality paint job. I thought it strange when he quipped that he needs to down a six-pack of Budweiser before flying "that thing".

We flew off a fairly long runway at St. Simons Is, Georgia and soon after take-off found out why....I wished that I'd had a six-pack....what an experience. I showed him different manifold pressures for different speeds...gear down, etc, final approach configuration and so on.

Speed on final was around 100 MPH and a carrier landing is how they recommend landing them, and believe me, it's very fast on touchdown.

I was never happier to be safe on the ground and realized why, after it's second anniversary, has only 15 hours on it.

Regards,
 
Ken Herchuck said:
I like the technology in it, the canard, the wings, capacity on fuel and people and the performance. Not to say that its the be all end all. I thought its odd that you can only paint it white, as the fiberglass dosent like heat.

In building hotrods, we use to let the gelcoat bodies sit in the sun to cure more, and to take a final shape before building the car. So I find that odd and a concern in some respect.
Click to expand...

The reason you can/should only paint canard aircraft white is that the structure is in the composite materials not in a subframe like you have in sports cars.

In the Cozy for example (a plans based canard) The structure is a sandwhich of foam and fiberglass. The foam starts breaking down at higher temps (like what you might get parked in the sun on the ramp). It's the sandwich that gives the structure it's strength. White isn't the only color you can use but it is the best at keeping the internal strucutre (foam) from breaking down.

It's true that we let the epoxy cure under heat (black plastic drapped over the part in the sun) but the temp needs to be monitoried. To much and your day could be ruined or worse! Darker colors add to the heat internally that the foam experiences.

More info can be found on the canard forums...but it sounds like the RV10 is still your (my) best bet :)

Bob
 
Well I dont disagree that landing an aircraft under 600 feet is sweet. Thats why I like the Warrior, easy takeoff easy land. 1000 feet stuff does get worrysome. Grass? How many flight schools you know that are certified for grass? I asked a cfi about it about a year ago where I was flying from,"So, can you tell me how we can get certified for grass landings?" We Cant, was the answer. Not certified even with the CFI. It will be like my first landing, the CFI forgot that I haddnt landed the plane yet (2nd lesson) and wasnt paying attention. He never called his aircraft so I did what we needed to do, land. I greased it. As we taxied he asked in a oops sort of way, oh wait we didnt go over that did we. Well we just did I answered.
 
I had 300 hours, out of 360 total in a Warrior. Loved the plane, did all my IFR training in it. Flew is to OSH 5 times. Handled great. I found it a little limited in load capacity at times. Very stable and easy to fly.

That was 45 flight hours ago. I now have 45 hrs of flight time my RV-10. The only thing the Warrior does better than the 10 is slow down. The RV-10 is just as stable, handles a x-wind better, carries more, out climbs it 2 to 1, and flys faster by 50%, but you need to plan to slow down in advance.
 
To clarify Bob's comment, it is not the foam glass transition as much as the Tg of the Epoxy. Room temp cured epoxy used for canards typically have a Tg of somewhere around 140F (depending on which brand you use) but post cured can reach ~>190F. Foam transitions around 200F.

http://www.cozybuilders.org/ref_info/2006_06_Hunter_Resin_Price_Table.pdf

White paint keeps the structure temp well below this level. You can paint them yellow or tan and you can paint the bottom and non-structural areas grey if you like.

The Velo has a much smaller mission profile compared to the -10. Van did a great job there as usual using his "Total Performance" design criteria. The Velo is a comfortable, fast stall/spin proof cross country cruiser. I don't think a 6-pack is required on the pre-flight (maybe a pint) as they do land fast, but they handle crosswinds exceptionally well. The -10 can take you other places.

Ryan
 
Just to clarify...

Bob Hassel stated....In the Cozy for example (a plans based canard) The structure is a sandwhich of foam and fiberglass. The foam starts breaking down at higher temps (like what you might get parked in the sun on the ramp). It's the sandwich that gives the structure it's strength. White isn't the only color you can use but it is the best at keeping the internal strucutre (foam) from breaking down.

Hi folks, I'm a long time lurker on this sight...lots of great information! I am a Cozy builder/flyer and just wanted to put the record straight. Fiberglass planes are painted white due to the epoxy TG (glass transition temperature). This is the temp that the epoxy begins to turn to goo (scientific term :)) and lose its structural strength. So it is the epoxy substrate and not the foam that needs to be watched.

Pierre Smith said in part We flew off a fairly long runway at St. Simons Is, Georgia and soon after take-off found out why....I wished that I'd had a six-pack....what an experience. I showed him different manifold pressures for different speeds...gear down, etc, final approach configuration and so on.

Though the canards are not known for getting in and out of tight places, they are not as bad as many think. They do fly differently than a conventional plane, but Pierre's experience sounds "out of the ordinary" I think the fact he only has 15 hours on the plane in 2 years is an indicator. My first flight was on 1/13/09 and I have 63 hours on mine.

Canards are simply different and are better in some areas than a comparably equiped RV and certainly worse in others. Just a few examples....my plane trues out at 187 kts wot on 180hp IO360 with a fixed pitch prop. I don't think too many RV-7's with a comparable engine/prop will do as well. Plus the Cozy is a 4 seater (2+2) vs the 2 seat RV's and has a useful load of 1050 lbs. The RV's probably climb a little better but I get 2700'/min initially up to about 3500'. As for carrier landings, I can't touch the nice slow approach speeds of an RV (you guys got it made!:cool:), but I wouldn't call it a carrier landing. I am at 80 kts on final, round out in the low 70's and touch down in the high 60's. More like a Cessna 210.

Others here are absolutely correct, my plane will never see a grass strip...I can't get my wife into a 4 star hotel (has to be a 4 season's or Ritz) much less a tent and sleeping bag!

Just another point of view! Back to lurking!

Thanks!

Jon Dembs
Cozy Mark IV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top