RV10

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:47 am

The highest hour MCR’s are in the 4 – 5000 hour band, 10 years old and doing fine. I have no idea how long the machines will go on for but it will be a long time. This is however only one part of the equation in picking an aircraft. When I was making a decision I short listed the RV so I have high regard for VANS. However the cost of ownership is vastly different.

I have already mentioned a £4000 saving in fuel over a 180hp machine. This figure is likely to increase significantly over the next 10 years.

Consider the cost of props. My CS prop cost £2750 all in and a new set of blades is £850 ish (no fixed life and no return to factory maintenance). What do you pay for a new CS prop for a 180hp Vans? What is the ongoing maintenance on it?

My Engine needs 3L of oil every 100 hours and burns about ½L in that time. My old 180hp machine would need 12L of oil and burn 4L more. That is 16L v 3.5L, cost and green go to the Rotax.

My plugs cost about £2.50 each, what do you pay?

A new 912ULS costs about £10k, what does a new 180 hp Lyk cost?

I could carry on, but the big cost advantages are all on the side of the MCR and it adds up year on year to big numbers.

The fact is that by running my MCR v a 180hp vans I get a free aircraft in less than 10 years. This removes the long-lived issue from the equation as we know the MCR will last more than 10 years (I would expect 30 ish).

The above works if you are touring, but obviously if you fly aerobatics the Vans wins hands down. The aerobatic MCR was very good. It required no airframe strengthening and handled very well but it killed a brand new Rotax in 40 hours of test flying. Until some very clever individual designs an aerobatic tolerant oil system for the Rotax it will never be possible to aerobat one. If I come up on the lottery I will almost certainly get an RV8 200hp machine which I will turn upside down on a regular basis.

Rod1

David Broom · Post by **David Broom** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:06 am

Rod
The MCR is a great machine but I feel I must respond to some of the numbers you quote to prove your point. In the last 12 months I have done 103 hours in my 160 hp RV6 and my total fuel bill for the year is just over £3800. This includes gas guzzling for 14 hours of close formation training (and a tank full purchased in Rome at 3 euro per litre!) It does not include any drawback deduction since I do that annually and haven't got around to it yet. So I am a bit confused how you might save £4000 a year on fuel unless you do a lot more hours and actually produce fuel while flying! Admittedly you cite the 180 hp engine as the culprit but I am fitting a 180 into the RV7 I am building because fuel consumption performance when travelling in company with 180 hp equipped RV's indicate that they are slightly more efficient in the 135 to 145 knot cruise range than the 160 hp variant. Much the same as the RV's the plastic fantastic stands on its own merits as I am sure most people realise.

Going back to the original topic (RV10) I think Roger has done a great job in building his aircraft and it is indeed excellent to expand the choice available to homebuilders. Even though I personally couldn't afford one it doesn't stop me being envious.

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:08 pm

Rod1 wrote: Consider the cost of props. My CS prop cost £2750 all in and a new set of blades is £850 ish (no fixed life and no return to factory maintenance). What do you pay for a new CS prop for a 180hp Vans? What is the ongoing maintenance on it?
Rod1

But a RV doesn't NEED a CS prop to get up and go. We paid $640 (yes dollars) for the maple prop for our RV-9A. Leading edges are something they make skate board wheels from. It looks beautiful, it's smooth as silk and maintenance is wash the fly's off, perhaps a tin or varnish in a few years.

Steve

ps: OK it cost $240 to get the prop shipped from Florida.

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:54 am

Fair point, you do not need a CS prop in an MCR, but it reduces you takeoff run from 275m to 175m so it is good to have. Ground adjustable prop is £400 inc vat and delivery last time I looked, and you can replace individual blades yourself if you need to at low cost.

Rod1

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:13 pm

this is getting a bit like a pointless mine is bigger than yours argument. If it flies and you enjoy it then it is good. Isn't that good enough?

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:40 pm

It is called "Hangar chat". Just cuz we haven't mentioned a bent wing in the thread.

John Ferguson · Post by **John Ferguson** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:56 am

I see the RV-10 is still not on the approved list yet, is Roger really still waiting for his permit after all this time.
If he has the permit then does that not mean that it is now approved?

John

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:04 pm

RV10's are a fully approved type now and Roger's flying his. I looked around it on Saturday. A cracking job and unlike a SR22 it's made of proper stuff .

paul330 · Post by **paul330** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 8:39 am

I believe Roger's -10 does have a permit - I guess the paperwork is just catching up.

As for the capabilities of the -10, I am building mine to IFR/night spec in the hope that it will be permitted in 3 or 4 year's time. I'm one of the 1% who has an IR. This aeroplane will take 4 people and 100lb baggage to the South of France in 3 hours - it truely is awesome and I can't wait to have mine flying.

Right, off to the garage......