ATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2559 posts, RR: 34 Posted (9 years 2 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 15014 times:
Looking at Kit info at the moment and comparing. Looks like the Vans RV-10 seems to fit my goal best. Its relatively fast, a true four seater, and a heck of alot cheaper than going out and buying a comparable production aircraft.
My question is, before buying the info pack, anyone out there build or fly an RV-10? Just want to know what the scuttle-butt is about the aircraft. She looks pretty to me and with Vans reputation for quality and service, should be a good kit.
ATCme From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 304 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 15011 times:
Check out the EAA website, I wouldn't be surprised if it had a review on it somewhere...
I took a Young Eagles flight in an RV-9 (I think, maybe it was a 7) but it seemed like a nice airplane.
Sorry I couldn't help more.
I'm from the FAA, and I'm here to help. Really. Yes I'm serious, I'm here to help you.
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6818 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 15009 times:
I know two things...
The RV-10 is one of the most expensive kits currently on the market, and it (the kit ) is built about 5 mi. from my house.
I've seen completion cost estimates for the RV-10 at over $100k...more than double what you'd pay for a two-seater RV series aircraft. A suitable engine/prop combo will run you in the neighborhood of $30,000.
All the reviews I've seen on it, though have been really positive. RV's are probably the best homebuilt kits out there, and the completion percentage on their kits is the best in the homebuilt kit industry.
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
3DPlanes From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 167 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14968 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 3): The RV-10 is one of the most expensive kits currently on the market...
While this statement is true, it is still relatively cheap given its competition. Compare it against a 172 or Archer - both of which can run at least $175k and can easily top $200k. It's -much- faster, carries more, and goes -much-farther.
And, to see an expensive homebuilt, check out a Lancair IVP - $400,000! Of course its a pressurized turboprop, but still...
Anyhow, to the original poster, I know many folks that fly RVs (the link to VansAirForce above is a great place to start) and with more than 4000 kits sold there is a HUGE following/support network available.
Quoting ATCme (Reply 2): I took a Young Eagles flight in an RV-9 (I think, maybe it was a 7) but it seemed like a nice airplane.
I took a Young Eagles flight in an RV-6A, one of the two based out of Pioneer Airport. Very nice aircraft, however, being homebuilts, I guess the quality of the aircraft (finished product) depends on how much quality you put into manufacturing the aircraft.
ATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2559 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14937 times:
Personally im not too great turning wrenches, but when it comes to a plane, I plan on measuring ten times, cutting once, and plan on quality, not quantity or cheapness. Still in the planning stages (finances, building, partner in the plane etc.) but id love to have a good IFR panel, like a King GPS over a KX-155. (Id love to have a 430 over a KX155 but the GNS430's are pricey and King makes a good product in use by many 121 carriers).
So far looking at a 210HP engine as the performance/cost vs. the 235/260HP's look pretty good. Yea its not as fast, but you save some dough on the engine cost, overhauls (4 vs 6 cylinders), and maybe most importantly of all, GPH!
While I'm certainly not one to scoff at having a 430 or 530, or even the King gear, one of the potential advantages of an experimental is the option of using other equipment/avionics.
Now, I'm not saying that I'd put 100% faith in these (meaning some good old steam gauge backups are called for), but it's amazing what can be done for the money when you don't have to run it through umpteen years of FAA approvals.
** Note that I'm not saying umpteen years of approval is -bad-, I'd like to know that the gear I'm using is fail proof. But, technology moves -way- too fast for bureaucracy. Take at look at how the FAA still classifies Flight Sims...
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3164 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14881 times:
I've flown a couple RVs. I've also seen some that I was afraid to get near on the ground. The aircraft I have been in were an RV-7a and an RV-8a. Great handling aircraft. Very stable, very responsive at low speed.
I've never built an aircraft but have done a little metal work (father is a welder by trade) and can say that with a little practice, a rivet gun isn't hard to use. Much easier than composites. Get friendly with your local EAA chapter. That's a good place to start. They'll be able to help you.
One thing to consider when looking at avionics is that while slightly more expensive, the 430 is all-in-one and that saves complexity and wiring issues. Also, 430s are starting to show up used becuase there are some good offers out there for trade ins for the newer version that has some updates like WAAS capability and terrain advisories.