I agree with you there, but let's compare a new Beech V35 with G1000 would cost compared to a new RV10. I'm guessing about $600k vs $250k.

Todd,

Talk about the Velocity a bit. I keep looking for a four place E-AB and this one looks promising.

Todd,

Talk about the Velocity a bit. I keep looking for a four place E-AB and this one looks promising.

I like RVs a lot, but understand that to get carry the load that they state, you're looking at pretty bare bones interior. Not that you're held to any kind of weight, since it's experimental.

I've seen RV-10s pretty decked out...to the point they look like a production airplane, but the weight increase is substantial. You aren't going to get a Cirrus like interior and air conditioning without a lot of $$, weight and effort.

Add in ZC corrosion protection, and that weighs even more.

Now I'm perfectly good with that, but your flying partner (wife, GF, family, whatever) may find it a bit "eh".

I fully looked at this before I bought my Bo. There is no doubt that a fully equipped RV-10, done as a "quick build" is fully as expensive up front as purchasing a high performance, fully loaded Bo.

The savings is on the back end. But, and this is a big but, is the resale (if you care about that). Certainly there is a community of people who will buy a pre-built experimental, but that number is smaller, and you don't get the "builder status" that goes with it.

Should the part 23 re-write include an owner-maintained category (and that is a giant, colossal "if"), then, IMHO there will be considerable price pressure on the pre-built experimental category.

Best,
Rich

Todd,

I am not questioning the capability of the designs you cite. Vans aircraft has something like 8675 aircraft flying, there is nothing wrong with their design. It is just as mentioned above that E-AB do have a higher than normal accident rate for a number of reasons. Poor QC on the part of builders, inexperienced pilots, new builders etc.

Its been beaten to death already, but you as the pilot must understand that they were not certified either by choice or by other issue. Example Lancair IV has issues around a stall, don't go there and your fine. But you need to understand that that wing has a characteristic that could not be placed on a certified aircraft.

Another example are unexplained inflight breakups of RV-7s. Is there a flutter issue? Probably not within the normal designed flight envelope, but just outside there probably is (NJ RV no report released, Canada RV exceeded redline). Was it in the design? Was is builder error in balancing the controls? What killed them? The issue is something to know about and respect, but if you understand it more likely not a deal breaker.

Wing loadings are much higher on some designs. Someone who flies certified aircraft may not understand that they may stall way above 61kts. Remember energy goes up as the square of velocity, so a crash in your Glasair will carry a lot more energy than a typical Bo. You understand and accept this risk.

Also people add things such as an extra 60 gallons of fuel in their RV-10, and also exceeded the design weights. Did they do any fatigue testing? Structural testing? My guess is no and they took margin that belonged to the engineer away such that it really is a new design that functions much closer to the edge than was ever intended. So if you decide to modify the design know and understand a lot about what you are doing and what you hope to accomplish. Maybe my 3 Mechanics of Material classes, 2 fatigue classes, fracture mechanics, and composites have me running scared about everything, but I would like to know that someone looked at every issue before the builder made a design change. I'm not an expert, but I would hope the builder could provide numbers about a modification.

These could be viewed as good or bad, but I would prefer to think of this as freedom. You have the freedom to fly them, but you best know an understand how they were put together, by whom, and what changes they made to original design before you go attempt to fly the edges of the designed envelope.

The Cardinal rule of aviation is in effect here as everywhere. Don't do anything dumb. And it seems to me that some builders are carless and make changes to things they don't understand, sometime successfully other times not so much.

I'll give you all a report when I get to building my RV-8.

A quick build RV is $800k? New versus new...

Peace,
Don

There have been a couple break-ups of -7's. There have been a couple break-ups of many types of planes. Pretty much any plane can be broken. I hope they eventually tell us what happened to that plane in NJ.

While there are, no doubt, some cowboys out there, I've found the hundreds of builders and pilots of E-AB's I've met to be just as serious about safety and conscientious about construction as are the pilots of Bonanzas and Barons.

For those who feel that allowing owners to use their own judgment (in repairs, construction, and avionics using non-certified parts) is too risky and compromises safety, then we should be hoping that Congress really DOESN'T do the Part 23 re-write to loosen up the rules.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong you just need to know, understand, and be able to accept the risk.

A quick build RV is $800k? New versus new...

Peace,
Don

I came from an RV7A to a Bonanza (A36 granted). The bonanza is a truck.

I agree with Jon and I accept those risks. In fact, in my Glasair if you lose an engine and are not over a runway you leave the gear UP. The descent rate with the gear out and engine out is about 2500 FPM. Believe it or not, damage to the plane is minimal with the gear up, but the impact speed is about 85-90 knots. The Glasair is definitely not for the guy with 350 hours of Cherokee time in his book that wants to take off and land out of a 2000 ft grass strip. It is a serious machine that requires a pilot that can handle a highly wing loaded plane with light controls. It reminds me a lot of flying a helicopter - not hard, but definitely requiring that you pay attention.

The Bonanza is a wonderful plane and the V35 would be a great transportation machine in all weather if the TN gave it a useful load increase. The TN solves the balance issues, but really is lacking in useful - especially if you want to go far. The A36 TN is about as good as it gets for a single piston IMO, but at what cost initial and going forward? A mid 80's low time engine and AF TN36 with G600, 55x, 530/750 etc would be what $250-350k? Still a bargain compared to new, but then you get to buy the unobtanium parts from Beech as well.

It's all good and I want to see all facets of GA do well. I was looking for the best performance, airframe, engine, avionics for the $. Not much out there that will cruise 900NM non-stop at 215 knots and do so on 13 GPH - especially below O2 requirement levels. Of course, there are trade-offs. Everyone needs to be responsible for their own choices. The wing on the G3 does not concern me a bit. For others it may be exactly what they do not need.

V-Twin has more storage space then the Xl and TXLs I looked at.

Tim

I spent the last two days researching the RV-10. I am pretty sure I see one in my future. Might be years down the road, but I see myself building one. Why not? All the toys and the ability to do what you want when you want is priceless.

I did not realize all the cool avionics Dynon had, and a few other companies. Simply amazing.

Maybe the wife will let me pull the trigger on a tail kit later this fall. . . . .

Be prepared to lay out $130-160K.....that's what she'll run with a decent engine/prop and a glass panel.

you could purchase a partially completed kit for a fraction of the price and be fairly far into your project.

90% done and 90% to go, as they say....