RV10

Alan Cooper · Post by **Alan Cooper** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:08 pm

Having read the latests PF article on the RV10 I,d be very interested to see some direct comparison figures versus the PA28 Dakota with the same engine.Sure the maintenance will be a lot cheaper on the LAA but worth all the pain of building??.Thats a very big engine to produce the performance....I,d like to see the future of light aviation with efficient aeroplanes.That aeroplanes no revolutionary ground breaker for sure. Horsepower is surely not the way for homebuilding movement to be going.Your thoughts???

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:38 am

Different strokes for different folks. There is no such thing as the perfect aircraft for everyone. If you want to lug 4 + beer and go fast it's just the ticket. Who is forcing you to build one? I Googled and found at least 20 for sale in the US with little effort. You might need to do some work to keep Francis happy but it's been done with other RVs.

Comparing the RV10 to a PA28 would be pointless. Different performance league. A SR20 would however be an interesting comparison. As for gas guzzler, I'd put money on the RV burning less fuel than ANY PA28 at similar speed and payload. Of course if you want to fly at 100knts you don't buy an RV and the laws of physics will have their way when you give it some welly.

IMHO The RV10's only flaw in the UK is CAA regulation (no IFR on LAA permit). Like the SR20 it's natural home is airways.

Steve

edited to correct 2 typos

Post by **John Dean** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:23 am

SteveNeale wrote:IMHO The RV10's only flaw in the UK is CAA regulation (no IFR on LAA permit). Like the SR20 it's natural home is airways.

I wonder if this is really the problem that it is perceived to be.

With the proposed future demise of the UK IMC rating and less than 1% of UK Private Pilots having an IR, could it be that the benefits of IMC in LAA aircraft would be very marginal?

Steve Brown · Post by **Steve Brown** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:58 am

The RV10 has similar load carrying capability (1150 ish lbs) to the (admittedly defunct) PA24-260 single Comanche which also used the IO-540 so comparisons with that are perhaps more relevant.

There is certainly a need for a Permit 4 seater and having the choice is surely good.

Perhaps this will evolve to other more steamlined/economical 4 seaters but for now it was great to see the RV10 up and flying at North Weald last Sunday. Well done to Roger for progressing the LAA approval through.

Cause & effect ref IMC & IR I'd suggest. High cost of maintaining currency in a CofA a/c & lack of cheap IFR flying capability generally may have discouraged pilots upgrading. If you add Night capable pilots (since night flying is under IFR) there is more latent demand for IFR for Permit a/c than just the 1% IR guys.

No-one is forced the IFR way but it would be good to have the choice (especially pre dawn & post dusk) and it may (likely) indeed drive many CofA a/c flyers to Permit a/c as noted in Over the hedge in the latest LAA mag - a good thing surely. 1% of UK PPLs are probably 1-2000 potentiol LAA members

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:40 am

If you want an economical 4 seater have a look at the MCR4s. I have been in one 4 up on a hot day and it was very good. 130kn on 100 hp Rotax 4 up is amazing. It will be available ready built under the new regs by early 2010, and you will be able to do your own maintenance.

Rod1

J.C. · Post by **J.C.** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:52 am

ALAN, you say H.P. is no way to go ,but surely that's just your opinion.Don't forget that the RV's come from " The good 'ol U S ofA" where the stockphrase is "There's no substitute for cubes".
I've got the biggest engine I can shoehorn into the front of mine and have to say it gives a real blast every flight,3000+ft /min climb rate might not be necessary but its fun!!!!!

jamie_duff · Post by **jamie_duff** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:19 am

Post 2 hit the nail on the head.

If you want to carry 4 people and get a good cruising speed then you need power.

There are 4 seaters with comparitively small engines available and they're all much slower than the RV.

If you fancy going to the south of Europe for a long weekend then a fast paced RV10 will make it much more viable than wheezing along at 100kts. Conversely if you just potter round in circles most of the time then a chuggernaut may make more sense.

Nobody to my knowledge has worked out how to get the required power for good climb, cruise and payload without having a big engine to do that.

Either way, unless you need the ability to fly IFR then a Piper will not compare well to the RV10 in any way - except building.

To be honest if you regard the building as a hassle before you even start then I'd make the friendly suggestion that it's not the path for you. I'd definately give the used RV-10 option some serious thought though!

Bill McCarthy · Post by **Bill McCarthy** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:20 pm

First flight in the KR2 must be getting near Jamie. What "donk" are you fitting ?

jamie_duff · Post by **jamie_duff** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:58 am

Not near enough Bill

I'm gathering pace though...

I have a Great Plains VW 2180 here for it - liberated from an imported KR2 that never flew here. I also got the Sterba 52 x 48 prop, the complete instrument panel and a load of miscellaneous bits and pieces, such as the control stick assembly.

It's done 206 hours so I'll rebuild it before flying behind it. If nothing else I want to inspect everything as it's been a few years since it last ran. The heads are single plug type though so I'll return them to GP to be drilled for dual ignition, and probably fit Leburgs when the time comes.

It's a 92mm bore on the 2180cc, but with the long stroke crankshaft. Hopefully it'll avoid the crankcase problems of the smaller capacity short stroke 94mm bore examples

It should be fairly punchy anyway

Rob Swain · Post by **Rob Swain** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:30 pm

jamie_duff wrote: and probably fit Leburgs when the time comes.

Good idea, but look into getting some now, as they are no longer oficially available, I believe.

Rob Swain · Post by **Rob Swain** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:39 pm

To get back on to topic...

It has been bemoaned elsewhere on this forum that the LAA permit types didn't include anything with 4 seats that could vie with the PA28.

Well the RV10 wipes the floor with most PA28s (the 140/150/160 etc versions) in both performance and capacity, the RV being a true 4 seater rather than the 2+2 capacity of a lot of PA28s, and 172s come to that.

When common sense prevails and equipment & training governs the access to night and IMC flight then we will all see this for what it is: the future of light aviation in the UK and Europe.

Still love my RV6 and the classic types though!

NJ673 · Post by **NJ673** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:17 am

[/Well the RV10 wipes the floor with most PA28s (the 140/150/160 etc versions) in both performance and capacity, the RV being a true 4 seater rather than the 2+2 capacity of a lot of PA28s, and 172s come to that.]

That maybe, but the RV10 uses 250 Hp to do it, look what Piper managed on 250hp back in the sixties[?] with the Commanche, later versions of course used 260Hp but then probably most US RV10's will use the 260 or 300hp Lyc??

The RV10 is a quantum leap for homebuilt recreational aviation, but is it an equal leap in technology? The success of the VANS is mainly due to them starting life as a true homebuilders aeroplane whose performance came from putting fairly big and easily obtainable cheap used engines in relatively small light airframes. Vans continue that tradition with the RV10 by using very common, good, and easily available Lyc 540 series engines, in a lightish airframe much the same size as a Pa28.

I am not knocking them in the slightest, but it is important to maintain a perspective. Comparing a 250Hp RV10 performance [ie ignoring CofA Vs Permit] against a 140 Cherokee or Cessna 172 is hardly a realistic comparison, but RV10 against Pipers 250 Commanche???, or for load hauling rough field capacity, Cessna's 206 ?

Gordon McDill

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:52 am

“we will all see this for what it is: the future of light aviation in the UK and Europe.”

I see the future of GA in aircraft which burn 20lph instead of 20gph. A light weight carbon 4 seater will get very close on performance for a fraction of the running costs. That said it is a modern Commanche and so will be quite popular.

Rod1

Will Greenwood · Post by **Will Greenwood** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:28 pm

20lph may be fine on short hops, but on long distance touring then the RV comes into it's own. Can remember where, but remember seeing an article on a group that went touring in there 912's, and one RV6, the fuel burn total was not all that different due to the high cruise of the RV. Each to his own and at the end of the day if your enjoying your flying who cares!

Will.

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:25 pm

I sometimes go touring in my MCR with a friend in a 150hp RV4. At 138kn I burn 15lph and he burns 23lph. He has the advantage of going faster for more fuel if he wants to, but that is quite a difference. Big advantage of the RV is you can turn it upside down.

Rod1