Tim's Unofficial RV-10 FAQ
This
FAQ was put together to answer some of the more
common questions I get. Hopefully you will find it useful as you
investigate the construction of your own RV-10. Keep in mind when you
read it that these are my opinions and experiences only, and if you ask
other builders the same questions, they may have very different answers.
How fast does it go, and
how fast does it climb?
What is the RV-10's
approximate service ceiling?
How much fuel does it
hold, and what is the the RV-10's range?
I've heard it's great on
short or grass fields, is that true?
Can the RV-10 haul 4
adults? How is the back seat leg room?
I've heard the RV-10 is
Nose Heavy, is this true?
Build it light, right? And what is
the gross Weight?
How much does it cost to build?
How well does the cabin
heat work...my wife gets cold?
What engines can I put in it?
How smooth is the engine
(IO-540)?
Does the RV-10 need
electric rudder trim?
Does the RV-10 need a Yaw
Dampner?
How stable is the RV-10
for IFR Flight?
What about the
elevator trim speed...I've heard it's fast?
What are the airplane's
weaknesses in construction?
What mods are available
for the RV-10?
I've heard there's a
problem with tunnel heat, is this true?
How about CHT's, Oil, and
inter-cowl temps....is it too hot?
How long does it take
to build an RV-10?
What is the half-way
point in building the RV-10...it's taking me soooo loooong?
Should I use a Throttle Quadrant or Push-Pull Cables?
How well do your Nav
and Com antennas work?
If you were doing it all
over, what would you do differently?
How Noisy is it
inside the RV-10?
How fast does it go, and how fast does it
climb?
The
RV-10 has an approximate top speed of about 183-185kts if you equip it
with a a standard 260Hp IO-540. Refer to Van's Aircraft
for their official specs, but what is listed here
might be a fair guide too. You can expect to cruise x/c at
between 160 and 170kts. Climb while solo is about 2100-2200fpm,
and climb with 2 front seaters should easily make 1700fpm. Loaded
up full, you may see an anemic reduced climb of only 1500-1600fpm on a
warm day. Even up at 10,000' MSL, your climb will likely approach
900-1000fpm. In short, yeah, it is plenty fast.
What is the RV-10's approximate service
ceiling?
I believe there is
some literiture out there that shows the
service ceiling as somewhere around 22,000'. This is probably
very close to it's actual service ceiling. There has been at
least one RV-10 taken to over 21,000'. You will no find great
climb performance at those altitudes though. Most RV-10 x/c
flights will be very comfortable between 8,000 and 17,000'.
How much fuel does it hold, and what is the
the RV-10's range?
The RV-10 holds a
little over 30 gallons per side if you fill it
full, giving you a round-number-fill of 60 gallons. There are
aux. fuel tanks available for the RV-10 if 60 won't do it, and other
builders have done other more extensive mods, although these aren't
factory approved. The RV-10 has a very reasonable and not
terribly tough to attain range of near over 1000nm depending on your
power settings. I'm a LOP (Lean of Peak EGT) x/c flier, and I can
easily see a range of 800-1000nm with legs of over 5 hours if I manage
power properly. Fuel flows at altitudes over 10,000 will range
from 7-10gph running LOP, at cruise speeds of 160-165kts TAS. If
you fly ROP, you will find fuel flows of 10-14gph on most x/c flights,
with a more limited leg time of about 3.5 - 4 hours when you leave a
good reserve. At these power settings you're more likely to see
170kts TAS. Choose your flying style to fit your preference and
your needs.
I've heard it's great on short or grass
fields, is that true?
So far it's been a
very good plane on shorter grass strips.
Van's specs claim takeoff and landing distances of 500-650'.
You really can't use these as practical values though if you're
trying to decide if you can shoehorn your RV-10 into your own grass
strip. A practiced and competent pilot should be able to operate
out of strips as short as 1200' depending on obstructions. On pavement,
the RV-10 can be landed and stopped conservatively in 1000' without too
much effort for a moderately skilled pilot. Give the RV-10 2000'
and you'll likely have no issues, but more is better when it comes to
runways. It does handle well on grass, and the nose gear leg is a
bit sturdier than its smaller brothers, although care should always be
taken to land with the nosegear off the ground and set it down as
gently as possible.
Can the RV-10 haul 4 adults? How is
the back seat leg room?
Oh for sure...the
RV-10 does a great job hauling people.
The front seats are very near CG, so you can put two pretty darn
fat people in front without phasing the RV-10. Stuff a couple of
pals in the back and you're probably fine in most equipped RV-10's.
Throw a pile of baggage in and you may have to start watching it
pretty close, depending on your airplane's configuration and your
passenger load. The baggage area is rated officially at 100lbs,
although in practice it seems that unless you're hauling unusually
heavy items, it will basically hold whatever it takes to fill it up.
Always verify your loads before you fly, for safety's sake.
I've heard the RV-10 is Nose Heavy, is this
true?
Well, yes and no.
I've
flown in very modestly equipped RV-10's with Hartzell metal C/S Props
and minimal accessories and interior, and then there's others like
mine...equipped with the same engine and prop, but with aux batteries,
full interiors, and things like that. In an airplane built about
as "normal" noseheavy as it gets, with a fairly forward CG, you can get
to the point where you may just run out of nose-up trim during final
approach. In my own personal aircraft though, with it's added aux
batteries and heavier main battery, I have no such problem. In
mine, I have full trim authority for all phases of flight, and do not
notice it being at all nose heavy. At the same time, I still have
a very adequate C.G. range that allows for quite a bit of load and
baggage. So no, depending on your equipment, you may or may not
notice any nose heaviness. Even the more forward CG planes though
are very comfortable to fly and pose no real issue. During your
first flights, it would be advisable for a pilot to fly with perhaps
50lbs of lead shot in the baggage area, and as the fly-off period
progresses, remove some lead in a couple of stages. This would
allow you to see the effects of tail weight, and get some easier
flaring during your initial flights. Once you become accustomed
to your RV-10, you will find in most cases that although you may enjoy
flying with the weight there, it's not at all required. On most
of my flights, I leave my tie-down kit in the tail, which may help a
little, but certainly it does not need any added ballast. Some
builders justify composite props based on how it's going to help "fix
the RV-10's nose heaviness". I can't disagree with this in
theory, as depending on their aircraft, they may have that need.
But, if you do opt for a lighter engine and prop, be aware that
while the RV-10 is very hard to load out of forward CG, it's not all
that tough to load it out of aft CG. It may be that if you go
with a light prop, you need to be much more cautious with other
accessories such as aux batteries, A/C systems, or other doodads.
Build
it light, right?
This one will probably get me crucified by the purists. While I'm
all for keeping down unnecessary weight, I'm also all for comfort and
function. I enjoy a quiet, comfortable interior, and plenty of
gadgets and good well-grounded wire runs. I didn't try to cut
every ounce as some builders do. I've found the performace
difference, being on the heavier half of the flying RV-10's just isn't
noticible, and I wouldn't trade my comfort for the bragging rights to
the low weight numbers. The RV-10 will still do most anything you
want it to do, even with a little junk in it's trunk. Try to be
weight conscious, but you don't have to overdo it, that's my thinking.
In addition, added weight gives a smoother ride in turbulence,
and actually increases maneuvering speed. As for the Gross
Weight, you'll find that most RV-10's empty weight will come out in the
1600-1700lb range when completed with interiors and paint. There
are even a few pushing 1725-1750lbs. Van's recommended gross
weight for
the RV-10 is 2700lbs, and although you are able to specify
your own gross wt. and some people have done 2800lbs or even
2850 or possibly more, Van's does not recommend that at all, and they
did the engineering to set the weight themselves. So the useful
load on most RV-10's will be 950-1150lbs, with most of them being over
1000. Extreme care needs to be excercised from deviating from the
gross wt. and this decision should not be taken lightly. Note in
even if from a weight perspective you were fine, if you indeed were
loaded to a higher-than-2700-gross weight, you would also very possibly
be nearing some out-of-CG range. So know your plane and it's
Weight and Balance and CG range, and flight test accordingly to prove
it.
How much does it cost to build?
Well
isn't that the million-dollar question? A wise man
named Scott Lewis once said "When working out how much a project
is going to cost, write down how much you think, then double it . . .
. then throw the paper in the bin and just keep spending money
until its finished!!" That's probably some good advice.
The RV-10 will be a tough plane to even think of building for less than
$100K. Some builders will manage to spend double that amount.
The average will probably fall right about in the middle.
It's not only in how you equip it, but when you bought it.
Prices on engines have taken great leaps upwards. Avionics
have gotten more expensive, as has the kit price itself over the past
few years. What was a $150,000 plane 2 years ago may be a
$160,000 plane this year. My advice is to budget for at least
$150,000 and if you can do it for less, great. If you can afford
to do it for $150K, you can probably also afford to do it for $180K, so
at least from a relative standpoint it's still do-able. Some very very
cost conscious builders will try to come in well under $150K.
This is great, but you will end up more likely having a VFR
plane, or minimal trimmings once you get down in the $130K or less
range. The single biggest favor you can do yourself if you're
truly tight on a budget is to build as much of the plane as you can on
your own. Skip the Quickbuild options, take the time to paint
your own plane, and wire your own panel. You ARE building for
"recreation, education, and enjoyment", aren't you? If so, why short
yourself the chance to learn these new skills, and have a better grasp
on your aircraft's workings.
How well does the cabin heat work...my wife
gets cold?
If there is one thing
you can tell your wife that will convince
her that the RV-10 is for her, it's that the heater works well in the
winter. The standard Lycoming equipped RV-10 with a vetterman exhaust
system will very easily and very smoothly heat the plane on even the
coldest days. The heat controls are front/rear independent, and
there is plenty of heat to warm the cabin. Even on 10 degree
days, I fly without any jacket most of the time, and still don't turn
the heat on it's highest settings. At temps below zero it would
still be easy to heat the cabin to a very comfortable temperature.
What engines can I put in it?
Well, Van's
recommends the 260Hp IO-540, which is perfect for
this plane. They also built a continental equipped plane with
210Hp that also performed well. So pick an engine between 210 and
260Hp and you should be fine. Any more than 260 is not factory
approved. 260Hp gives plenty of power for the RV-10, and without
turbocharging or turbonormalizing it gives plenty of safe performance
at altitude. Throw on a turbo and you may run into Vne or flutter
issues at altitude. You'll also want to avoid any engines that
are too heavy or too light, for proper CG. Another thing to keep
in mind is that an IO-540, while typically a 15gph type engine, can
easily be leaned and throttled back to provide very economical
operation that will rival what a 4-cylinder engine would do in the same
airframe...yet you still get the benefit of power when you need it and
the ability to climb well on hot days. My advice is to stick with the
tried and true. As for alternatives, there are the usual Subaru
and Mazda alternatives available, but as of this writing there are none
flying, and they're for the very true "experimenters", as nothing has
proven itself in aircraft as much as the standard air-cooled aircraft
engine. That's not to say they won't be great, but they're not
for everyone, and choosing one of them will likely increase your
construction time and complexity.
How smooth is the engine (IO-540)?
Very. You'll
often hear how builders choose 3-blade and
4-blade props, or automotive conversions just for their smoothness.
What needs to be mentioned though is that the IO-540 is a much
smoother engine than the typical 4-cylinder aircraft engine they may be
comparing their experience to. With a dynamically balanced
Hartzell C/S Prop and an IO-540, I constantly get comments from
passengers as to how smooth the combination is. The 3-blade MT
prop is also very smooth, and it looks very pretty. But, it also
has a totally different, and higher pitched buzz to it than the lower
pitched thumps of the Hartzell. Smoother, well, perhaps.
More comfortable? Well, that's personal preference. I was
very surprised to find when I flew behind both on the same day that I
prefer the sound of the Hartzell...and that's no sour grapes. The
engine is just very smooth, and no matter which prop you choose you
will likely be very happy, especially if you take the time to
dynamically balance your prop, which balances the entire rotating mass
of your engine.
Does the RV-10 need electric rudder trim?
This is another tough
question. I
recently added rudder trim using a Ray Allen servo
and the other associated parts. I flew over 285 hours without rudder
trim, and although it flew just fine with minimal foot pressure on the
right rudder (I had a trim wedge taped onto the rudder that compensated
for most of the trim in a 165kt cruise speed), a trim wedge is only
good for one airspeed. Therefore, I spent a lot of time with very
slight pressure on the rudder pedal, and my leg got tired sometimes as
we often fly greater than 4 hour legs. My suggestion is to add it as a
definite option, or if you're unsure, at least run the wires to the
rudder and through the tailcone for it so when you realize you want it,
that it's not as big of a job. In addition, save panel space for
a switch. I would, however, suggest installing it because doing
it after it's painted will be ok, but not as perfect cosmetically
unless you paint the rivet heads perfectly.
My trim block
was too much in a fast
descent,
so I have to add left rudder on descent, right rudder in climb, and
minimal right rudder in cruise. Rudder trim can also benefit from
the Safety-Trim
system's dual speed control that I consider to be great "Must Have"
equipment for the elevator.
Does the RV-10 need a Yaw Dampner?
Another tough question. "Need" is the wrong word. I've
flown over 200 hours without, and there's really no way that I would
bother to add one. I have had some tail wag in turbulence, but
only in lots of turbulence. There are those, however, who have
used Yaw Dampners in the past (not me), who may feel that the ride in
turbulence would be improved. I won't bother to try to argue with
them, but my personal opinion is that not only is it not a "need", but
you'd probably be wasting your money that could be better spent on
other things...unless you have millions.
How stable is the RV-10 for IFR Flight?
Oh man, this is a
question with a great answer... The
RV-10 is fantastically stable for IFR flight. It compares nicely
with a Beech Bonanza or my old plane the Sundowner. Crisp,
responsive, yet stable as can be. The stick forces in roll get
very firm at high speeds, which I feel is great. It tracks and
rides straight and true, and you can't just bump the stick into an
accidently-commanded roll. The forces in pitch are very
light....just heavy enough, in fact. It makes it a joy for even
the most weak-armed pilot to hold back pressure in steep turns.
You do want to brief your flying passengers or co-pilot on the
pitch sensitivity to prevent them from yanking hard on the stick.
It's a strong airplane that won't surprise you much, but you
don't want to have a person use too much control the first time they
pull on the elevator. Once you've felt it though, it's clear how
the airplane feels and you won't have any issue. Remember back to when
you started flying and you were all over the skies up and down, because
planes felt so sensitive. The RV-10 isn't like that, but a pilot
who's perhaps used to a heavy pitch airplane like the 182 may need a
head's up that this plane is NOT like that.
What about the elevator trim speed...I've
heard it's fast?
Again, here's one with a very complicated answer. Yes, and No.
The RV-10's standard elevator trim works pretty well much of the time.
With most RV-10's
you'll probably have full pitch trim authority on the elevator for any
amount of elevator required. (i.e. you can trim off all stick forces
for any phase of flight) During the
landing or low-speed phase, I'd say that the trim system is "just
right". It's basically perfect, and won't get you in trouble.
During high-speed flight though, say anything over about 120kts,
and you've got an awful lot of speed to the elevator trim...enough so
that I see it as a safety issue. Once
you hit 140kts IAS, you're looking at some very big consequences if you
accidently hold the trim switch too long. As it happened to me
during my fly-off, I had a binder on my lap that depressed the trim and
gave nose-up trim. Within 1 second of trim application, the
airplane will pitch up very sharply and will need a LOT of stick force
to overcome the trim. It is FAST, very fast, and I've measured well
into the 2+ G's that will happen if you hold the trim for a full
second. That's why in my plane I
do have a switch on the panel that will disable the trim buttons from
the co-pilot stick, when I want to take passengers like kids along.
There's just too much speed to the trim, and I don't want to only
have 1 second to react to a sudden change.
Herein steps the aftermarket mod companies. Recently, I
found one that I really like, the "Safety-Trim"
system that I'll describe in a couple paragraphs. There is
another one that I considered for
a while that uses pulse modulation to control the trim
motor speed. This I thoguht was pretty good. What it does
though, is to bring
the trim speed down to 50% for the first 1/2 second of application.
During the next 1/2 second, it begins to ramp up and at the end
of a total of 1 second of trim application, you'll be applying
full-speed trim. My first impression was that this would be nice.
After thinking about it for a while though, I decided not to
install it. The problem is, during the landing phase, I very much
like the trim speed to be 100%, ALL THE TIME. I really WANT that
fast trim setting when under 120kts, and I don't want to wait for 1
second before I get full speed trim. In addition, it requires an
override switch in the panel, in case it's microprocessor runs away on
you. Yes, it runs a real microsprocessor, and because there is a
"program" running, the makers require a disconnect switch on the
panel. That doesn't give me warm fuzzies. Then the last straw was
that in the example of the notebook binder laying on the
switch, sure, now it wouldn't run away so fast, but still after 1
second of something pushing that switch, you're going to be quickly
moving out of trim and out of control. An additional negative actually
turned out to be the use of pulse modulation in the design. Talking it
over with a design engineer, he warned that one of the catches with PWM
control would be that you're inducing a noisy pulsing power signal into
your electrical system that you really don't need.
Another system is out there uses an airspeed switch to control the
system. This seems much nicer in that now you have 2 settings,
and they change based on your airspeed. Much more
appropriate. The catch is, airspeed sensing switches can be
pretty touchy and you have to buy one for the range that you want to
switch at, and hopefully it'll stay set to that speed setting. You also
need to be careful when a system changes trim speed by just lowering
the voltage to the trim
motor. This means that the motor can stall out on you.
That's why the pulse-modulation at first glance seemed to be a good way
to reduce the speed...but the noise negates that benefit. A properly
adjusted voltage setting works well on the RV-10 though for slow speed.
So what did I do? I installed the "Safety-Trim"
system, finally, at 285 hours of flight time. It looks to be an ideal
system for the RV-10. I actually had the opportunity to talk to the
person who developed it, Bob Newman from tcwtech.com, before it was
released, and get some insight into his operational concepts, and I
found them very much in sync with what I had hoped to have in a trim
system. His system includes some real safety benefits for the RV-10,
such as dual-speed capabilities, a runaway trim prevention system, a
reversing selector, and a panel-mounted trim disable switch. After
installing it and testing it, I'm convinced that it will be a fantastic
addition to safety for any RV-10, or other aircraft if you're not a -10
builder. Read my
Safety-Trim write-up for more info.
You can install
nothing for an aftermarket trim speed system and I think you'll enjoy
the plane, but do be careful of
inadvertent trim application.
What are the airplane's weaknesses in
construction?
Well, there's a couple of weaknesses. Overall it's a fantastic
plane, but here are things that could use improvement.
Doors - The doors could be better designed, including locking latches
to meet some state's lock requirements, and they could be a little
tougher. While for the most part they work ok, they tend to pull
in better on the front than the back, and unless you add a handle to
pull on the back side, it can be hard to get both the front and rear
latch pin to go in without the properly angled pull on the door handle.
Also, if the rear pin doesn't make it far enough over, it will
poke out and chip your fuselage paint, which by the way would be nice
if they'd make a striker plate that would prevent this damage. If
you don't get the rear pin in when you latch the door, you will also
very likely find yourself door-less once you get off the ground.
So, they added a door-latch warning system. So in general,
the doors could be improved a bit, but it's nothing too awful bad.
Air vents - The front NACA vents for the front seat passenger could be
better placed. As it is, it's tough to get ideally angled
ventilation from them. Overhead vents would be nice, and can be
added by adding an overhead console. So that is a nice
recommendation. It also would fix my next weakness....
Overhead Wiring - It could be easier to mount overhead switches,
antennas in the cabin top, vents, and wiring/lights. In the RV-10
some of this can be done, but not nearly as easily as it would be if
you add an overhead console. Luckily they're available, and if
they would have been there when I was doing my cabin, I would have
definitely added one.
What mods are available for the RV-10?
There are getting to
be more and more. There are overhead
consoles, center consoles, fiberglass panels, stronger axle extensions,
numerous replacement parts of better design by rivethead-areo, the Sam
James Cowl and plenum, the Forsling exhaust system, replacement rudder
pedals and more. That's the beauty of a homebuilt...you can
dabble in the mods and make it the way you want it. Be aware that many
mods may increase your build time, or expense, so look closely at
things before you jump.
I've heard there's a problem with tunnel
heat, is this true?
Personally I'm not
convinced that there are any major
issues with tunnel heat. That's not to say that heat isn't going
to be an issue you want to deal with....it is. There are some
simple things you can do that will lower the temps you see in your
tunnel. To see a previous write-up I did on this, just see this link.
Why is tunnel heat an issue? Well, if you heat the tunnel,
your fuel lines run through that tunnel and any added heat will
decrease your margin of temperature before your fuel vaporizes in the
lines, causing vapor lock. There is at least one case of
suspected vapor lock ending in an off-airport landing in and RV-10 from
what I understand (this is unverified). So that just means you
want a tunnel that's as cool as possible, which isn't always easy with
the exhaust so close, and with the cabin heat constantly blasting
through the SCAT tubes at those cabin heat control boxes on the
firewall. But with a little extra work, you shouldn't have any
problems that cause you any issues. See this link
for some solutions. This year during annual inspection I also did
one more step that seems to have further decreased the temps....I
wrapped my SCAT ducts in the tunnel with double-sided silver foam/fiber
centered insulation like I used on my firewall. This would help
keep the heater duct heat IN the ducts, and keep it from radiating into
the tunnel. I insulated them back to the wing spar. Every
bit of diligence helps, but with just a few simple steps, I can't help
but think that this isn't one of those alarming major issues.
How about CHT's, Oil, and inter-cowl
temps....is it too hot?
Well here again, there's been a lot of discussion about the high temps
on the RV-10 CHT, and some people have resorted to louvres to "fix" the
heat problem. See this
link
for more info. The problem is, I personally believe that these
builders have just put too much faith in themselves and taken an easy
way out that will mask the underlying problems. They may not like
to hear it, but hey, I was in that boat. I thought I did a great
job. I would have sworn by it.....until I found out that I could have
done better. Here's
how.
Basically, it's easy to make a couple of improvements in baffling that
take care of most any heat related issues that you may have, at least
for most builders. If you live in the desert, not just fly there
occasionally, then perhaps you may want to do more, but here is the way
I see it:
Originally I could be flying in 10 degree F weather and on climbout I
could hit 410degrees F or more on CHT within a couple thousand feet of
climb. So yeah, I was worried. Then, some people told me
the redline on CHT's was much higher, and not to sweat it. Well,
that didn't fully ease my mind. But, after doing some baffle
work, linked to above, I now find that even in the summer when it's 90F
out, I'd still have a very hard time hitting 400F on my CHT's during
climb. So did I improve things? Well, without a doubt I can
say I did. I did this by a fix to the cowls air ramps, to some
sealing of holes, by filing out the slag from the fins on the very top
of my cylinder heads that restricted cooling flow, and from some little
tweaks with RTV to improve cooling. In addition, I have done a
pretty good job on my baffling. I'm using a standard cowl, by the
way, with no plenum. So with all that done, I now see maybe 30F
or more lower temps, and that's more than just a slight improvement on
what I had thought was a plenty adequate job. So, if you're a
builder with high CHT's in climb, I'd encourage you to drop the pride
and start looking for the root causes before you hack in a pair of
louvres and band-aid the problem. There may indeed be situations
where louvres are a good thing, depending on your location. I
myself will try to do some flights on the hottest of days this year,
when it's 100F or more, and see if there is any more I want to do, but
on flights in the 90-95F range, I haven't seen that I have any further
issues that really need addressing.
In addition, I'm up here in the norther areas. In the winters my
oil temps struggle to stay in the 165-185 range. In the summers
they struggle to hit 185-190. You really want to get your oil
near that 185F mark to burn off moisture in your oil. So if I
added louvres, I may also have to add an adjustable control to my oil
filter to allow my oil temps to remain high. I currently would have a
very hard time getting oil temps to rise above 205, regardless of how
hard I climb.
One additional note: If you're climbing at high gross-weights, or
if you climb on a hot day and seem to have higher CHT's, your first
step should be to drop the nose, pick up 10-20kts, and see how that
goes. You can adjust your flying style a tad in hot weather and
head off some problems as well, even without mods. The baffling
improvement that I have done on this
page though,
are well worth it for any builder.
Oh, and before I skip to the next question...what about the James Cowl
and Plenum? I think that's probably an excellent system, and
should work well for many builders who want to opt for that change.
Hopefully it'll give the estimated speed improvements, because if
it didn't, it might have a hard time justifying the cost. But, it
is a great looking system and the cowl quality of finishing work is
better than Van's from what I've heard, so really, if it trips your
trigger, even without the numbers being in as of this writing, it's not
a bad decision. Just don't think of it as a panacea from heat
issues, because really those won't exist if a builder is diligent with
their construction.
How long does it take to build an RV-10?
I have a question back. Let's say you were fishing. You
cast your line, over and over. How long will it take you to catch
a fish?
So now you get the idea of what you're asking....it just depends.
That said, I built it in a hair over 24 months, and that was with a QB
Fuselage only. Had I had to build the fuselage completely, maybe
add another 3 months or 4 months. It took me 1700 hours to get
it flying, and to finish the wheel fairings it was about 1900 total
hours. I built slowly for the first 3/4 of the build, but cranked
out nearly 1000 hours in the last 1/2 year. The motivation
increases once your airframe is done. Most builders will find it
takes them 2-4 years to complete the RV-10. If you don't have a
day job, you could maybe do it in 1-2 years. If you have lots of
help, faster. I know one group of 2 or 3 builders that is about
1/2 done in 4 months or so. Amazing.
What's the half-way point in building the
RV-10...it's taking me soooo loooong?
This
is kind of a guesstimate of an answer based on my experience with a QB
fuse only, so your mileage may vary a bit. What I consider to be
the 1/2 way point is at first glance to many builders a bit of a
surprise. I figure it's getting close to the end of the actual
airframe construction, at about the time you're putting your windshield
in the airplane. Of course, some people leave the windshield out
extra long for better access, but if you do it at the normal spot,
that's about 1/2 way. Most first-time builders, including myself,
don't really have a concept of just how many wrap-up details there are
at the end. During the last couple months, I kept a list, and for
ever item I completed, I seemed to add a couple more. Do keep a
list, so you don't forget anything, but you'll be surprised at how many
details you will find. Building a plane is not a big
project....it's thousands of tiny projects and steps. You get
there by crossing them off one at a time.
Should I use a Throttle Quadrant or Push-Pull Cables?
Many
RV's use push-pull cables, with vernier control. The
RV-10 has that as a standard, and an option of a throttle quadrant.
The push-pulls have the benefit of taking up less space.
The much touted other benefit of verniers is often that it allows
a more precice control of the MP and RPM. I have found this is a
complete NON-ISSUE with the Van's RV-10 quadrant. In fact, I had
a MUCH harder time getting exacting RPM's and Manifold pressures in
220RV's push-pull controls than using the quadrant. The quadrant
is extremely smooth, and can be worked with lots of precision. In
some people's opinions, the quadrant looks nicer too (and I'm one of
the people with that opinion). So if you're up for a little extra
spending, feel comfortable going that route. I personally think
it's a much nicer way to go altogether, and again, you don't sacrifice
precision with this quadrant. One other note....many formation
groups will not allow airplanes with push-pull controls....no
exceptions. So if you're thinking of formation flying, just get
the quadrant and be happy you did. Although you can change your
mind later and swap them, it wouldn't be a fun job, so just do it the
way you want to the first time.
How Well do your Nav
and Com antennas work?
I
have 2 belly mounted COM antennas, mounted under the rear seat
area, in what I think was the 2nd bay inward. They both work
excellently and I've been able to communicate over very long ranges
with no problem. My Nav1 is a V-shaped antenna under the tail,
which
is fairly protected by the tail except for possibly small children that
may run into it, and it works very very well. My wingtip Nav2 is
a Bob
Archer Nav, and I've been happy with that too. It works well, but
doesn't receive quite as far as the Nav antenna under the tail. I
feel
that the airframe may shadow the wingtip antenna from some angles,
which is why I went with the tail mounted antenna as my #1. In a
test one day, I got about 100 miles from a VOR and got signal on the
SL-30 with the V antenna, but about 80 miles with the Bob Archer on my
GNS-480.
If you were doing it all over, what would
you do differently?
You
know, this question requires some thought. There are some
minor things I would have changed, like adding rudder trim right way,
or using dual defrost fans that are larger, like I have now. Or
perhaps finishing my wheel fairings before the plane went to
the airport and I was flying. But that said, the project as a
whole is extremely satisfying, and for me, especially from an avionics
perspective. So there really isn't much that I feel a great need
to change. Also, this question gets harder as time goes by,
because the things that you can change easy, you will. The plane
is never actually "finished". Add to that the fact that the plane
is such a complete joy to fly and own that you quickly forget about all
the pains of building. So while I may be able to identify some
changes if I sat and talked for a couple hours, there just isn't a huge
pile of things that pop to mind about what I would do differently.
I'm glad I built it, I'm glad I build it with a QB fuse, and I'm
glad I did all the rest myself, without farming it all out to others.
It gives a great sense of pride and accomplishment.
How noisy is it inside the
RV-10?
Well,
since I don't have a sound meter and haven't done any actual testing to
give a number in decibels, all I can say is that usually people who go
for rides are fairly impresses. Some people will pull their
headset off just to check the noise level and they all seem to say it's
a fairly quiet plane. So, I think it must stack up nicely in
comparison to the common GA plane. One thing that I have done is
to add 3/4" foam under the front floors, 1/2" under the middle floors,
and 3/8" under the baggage area. In addition I have a firewall pad from
Flightline Interiors
with a foam/fiber center and silver on both sides that is attached to
the firewall, and also lining the tunnel. I also put foam on the
sidewalls except for above the wing roots, since it is so light.
And, my baggage bulkhead cover has foam that fills the low spots
on the corrugation and I have a baggage bulkhead cover too, and fabric
on the canopy top. Combine this with Flightline's interior and
carpeting and it really ought to be one of the more quiet planes you
find. I still highly recommend a good pair of ANR headsets, just
for your total comfort and enjoyment. I've got a plane-powered
set of Bose AviationX headsets for each of the family members and they
really make for an enjoyable x/c flight.