Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Retractable
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

jesse(at)itecusa.org
Guest

Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 10:37 am Post subject: Retractable

Amen to this!  I heard of an RV-6 that was made retractable.  It weighted a

lot more, so had less usefull load, cost a TON more to make, took a LOT

longer, and added as much a 6kts to cruise.  Go ahead, but don't expect a

lot to follow.  Van's has a great design.  Oh yeah, and expect the insurance

to be a LOT higher.



Do not archive.



Jesse Saint

I-TEC, Inc.

jesse(at)itecusa.org

www.itecusa.org

352-465-4545



--

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 11:26 am Post subject: Retractable

I just finished an article in Flying Magazine the other day.

They had some guy who is related to insuring cessnas or

something who stated that the cost of a 182RG versus

an ordinary 182 was something like double the insurance

cost, or maybe it was 4 times the cost.  The 182 is

*kind of* comparable to the RV-10.   Imagine $6900 insurance

on your new RV-10.   Or, if it was 4 times.....$13,800.

Wish I could remember, but since it was about a Cessna

I didn't pay as much attention.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Jesse Saint wrote:

[quote] 

 

 Amen to this!  I heard of an RV-6 that was made retractable.  It weighted a

 lot more, so had less usefull load, cost a TON more to make, took a LOT

 longer, and added as much a 6kts to cruise.  Go ahead, but don't expect a

 lot to follow.  Van's has a great design.  Oh yeah, and expect the insurance

 to be a LOT higher.

 

 Do not archive.

 

 Jesse Saint

 I-TEC, Inc.

 jesse(at)itecusa.org

 www.itecusa.org

 352-465-4545

 

 --

RobHickman(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 12:38 pm Post subject: Retractable

My neighbor just insured his Cessna 210 with retracts - -  $2,400 a  year for $100,000 Hull

  

  

 He has 800 hours and VFR only

  

  

 Rob Hickman

pioneer(at)choiceonemail.
Guest

Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: Retractable

I fly both an Archer and Piper Arrow.  Annual insurance on the Archer is 

$1200, on the Arrow it is $2000.



Bruce Case #40446

av8or(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 7:28 pm Post subject: Retractable

This is an interesting thread, but there may be  one flaw in the assumptions.....namely that you could get  insurance!

  

 John

 #40262

 [quote]   ---

dmasys(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 6:29 am Post subject: Retractable

---- David Maib <dmaib(at)mac.com> wrote: 



 	  Quote: 	
		   Don't get me wrong, the  

 Bonanza is an awesome airplane, but less complexity and similar  

 performance are very attractive to me now. 


	


Had a fun experience last weekend.  Flew the -7A to Columbus Ohio (CMH) and landed at Lane Aviation, where there were acres of Bonanzas and Barons on the ramp, and a one day Beechcraft pilot proficiency refresher course in progress.  A couple of the Beech drivers struck up a conversation with me about that 'cute little homebuilt".  They were more or less in gloat mode until I told them that cute little homebuilt had a 75% cruise of 175kts and a service ceiling of 25,000 feet on 11 gph.  Got very quiet, except for a quietly uttered 'cripes!'.



-Dan Masys

#40448 wiring & systems installation

jjessen

Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 285
Location: OR

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 6:56 am Post subject: Retractable

Bonanza driver at my field continues to mutter something about "how long

would it take me to build a 10?"  Yeah, sometimes it's always greener in the

other fella's pasture.  If someone came up to me and said he'd gladly sell

his pristine 33A to me for what I'm likely to put into the 10, it's be a

hard choice to turn him down.  A beautiful airplane.  



John J



do not archive



--

johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 7:13 am Post subject: Retractable

Dan, has anyone confirmed the service ceiling of 25,000 with a fuel burn

of 11gph in a flying RV-10?



John



--

dmasys(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 7:40 am Post subject: Retractable

---- John Jessen <jjessen(at)rcn.com> wrote: 



 	  Quote: 	
		  If someone came up to me and said he'd gladly sell

 his pristine 33A to me for what I'm likely to put into the 10, it's be a

 hard choice to turn him down.  A beautiful airplane.  


	


A 33A I could walk away from.  An A-36 for the price of an RV-10, now that would be a conversation .  But even then, the balance tips in favor of the homebuilt in my mind due to that FAA repairman's card you're going to have in your pocket after  you get this puppy airborne.  It'll always be a project, and you can put as much or as little time and money into it as you like, without worrying every year about a multi-kilobucks surprise at an annual inspection.  Playing with your airplane includes playing with its systems configurations, adding new gadgets,  etc.  In that regard it is a much better boy toy than any spam can.



-Dan Masys

dmasys(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:11 am Post subject: Retractable

Sorry, the numbers in my message are for my 200hp RV-7A, and the 11 gph goes with the 75% power setting and 175kts, not with the 25K ceiling.  Because I don't have a pressure mask on my O2 system, I have only flown it to 17.5K but it was still climbing at about 500 fpm at that altitude.  Full throttle, best power mixture up there  gives an indicated airspeed of about 125kts in my plane, roughly corresponding to 45-40% power, and 7-8 gph.  Fuel flows and power levels would be correspondingly lower in the 20's.



-Dan Masys

---- "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> wrote: 

[quote] 

 

 Dan, has anyone confirmed the service ceiling of 25,000 with a fuel burn

 of 11gph in a flying RV-10?

 

 John

 

 --

jjessen

Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 285
Location: OR

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:42 am Post subject: Retractable

Agreed, but when I flew that 33A, it sure flew solid.  No, in reality, I

wouldn't bite.  I'm looking forward to my 10.  I'm looking forward to being

able to working on it, pampering it, making it better and better.  But, a

Bonanza is a very good "spam" can.  



John J



do not archive and back to work!   



--

jesse(at)itecusa.org
Guest

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:26 am Post subject: Retractable

Realistic service ceiling is about 18,000.  I have it on "good authority"

that it will make it to 21,000 at near gross weight, but it sure doesn't

like flying up there.  At 18,000, 185mph TAS, 6.5gph LOP.  No, I don't have

info on MP or RPM, but the throttle is always all the way in when flying

high.



Do not archive.



Jesse Saint

I-TEC, Inc.

jesse(at)itecusa.org

www.itecusa.org

352-465-4545



--

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 12:19 pm Post subject: Retractable

In a message dated 5/25/06 10:58:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  jjessen(at)rcn.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  pristine    33A to me for what I'm likely to put into the 10, it's be a

hard choice to    turn him down.  A beautiful airplane 	


 

 John until the first time you needed to buy a part or a decal from the  factory...yipes...expensive stuff...

  

 Patrick

  

 do not achive

jjessen

Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 285
Location: OR

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 12:42 pm Post subject: Retractable

Yeah, that's one major  reason he's drooling over the thought of a 10.  No, Bonanza's are  wonderful, as are the Cirrus and Columbia airplanes.  But, for a few years  dedicated labor, one can have a craft that more than meets my criteria, a large  part of which is self maintenance.  Wing loading on the Bonanza makes them  a much more enjoyable ride in the bump and grind.  Other than that, one can  have as much speed, more room, and lower costs.  

  

 John J

  

 do not  archive



   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of  GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 1:15  PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: RV10-List:  Retractable

 

  In a message dated 5/25/06 10:58:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  jjessen(at)rcn.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  pristine 33A to me for what    I'm likely to put into the 10, it's be a

hard choice to turn him    down.  A beautiful airplane 	


 

 John until the first time you needed to buy a part or a decal from the  factory...yipes...expensive stuff...

  

 Patrick

  

 do not achive

Robin Marks

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 24
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: Retractable

 	  Quote: 	
		  Wing loading on the Bonanza makes them a much more enjoyable ride in the bump and grind.  Other than that, one can have as much speed, more room, and lower costs.     

   
	


Don’t forget the ability to put exactly what electronics you wish in your -10 to take advantage of the latest in technology which I am convinced will make us safer pilots with respect to weather, traffic, detailed GPS navigation, terrain etc. Don’t take this the wrong way, I love my Bonanza but the thought of a certified panel upgrade to state of the art displays sends chills down my bankers spine. Also note a late model Bonanza is still 20 years old.  

Now back to the original reason for this post; I have personally taken a solemn pledge to never again purchase a retract (unless one winks at me extra sexy like). The cost of gear maintenance can come close to matching the entire balance of aircraft maintenance before considering the weight consequence or insurance. With today’s modern fairings the drag penalty is relatively small even for guys like me with the extra weenie wheel.     

In my limited piloting experience (6 planes) I believe performance, safety, comfort and VALUE are all on the side of experimental builders (assuming one follows the plans).   

   

Robin  

   

   

    

   

    

do not achive

_________________
RV-4 Sold
RV-6A 0-360 - C/S Flying

toaster73(at)earthlink.ne
Guest

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: Retractable

Slight fault there... Bonanza'a aren't spam cans; just RV-10's produced in 

mass.

-Chris L.

#40072

former C-35 driver

do not archive



---

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 6:40 pm Post subject: Retractable

In a message dated 5/25/06 10:19:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  toaster73(at)earthlink.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Bonanza'a aren't spam cans 	


 

 Got to love an ol Bo driver...too bad they eat so much gas compared to a  nice Mooney...sparks flying...!!! LOL

  

 Patrick

  

 do not archive

jhstarn(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject: Retractable

I usta fly with "Bonanza" pilots. Did you just refer to a 33A as a "Bonanza" 

?. Last time I did that was about 20 years ago I was flamed in person on all 

sides by V-35 Bonanza Pilots.

Just because it was made by Beechcraft doesn't make it a Bonanza or any less 

a spam can.

A '59 Chevy 4Dr. Station wagon is not an "Impala" regardless of that the 

bean counters at Chevrolet thinks. A "Impala" was built in 1958 and came 

ONLY in two models ...2 door hardtop & a 2 door coverable

My, my how times have changed.  But words do mean things to some of us.

Don't mean to leave Ford out, look what they produced and called a "Cobra", 

YUK.   Do Not Archive  KABONG.

By the way, Van's has an update on the RVcoupe (RV-12 for those from Yorba 

Linda)



---

sgesele(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: Retractable

 	  Quote: 	
		   Time: 07:29:09 AM PST US

 From: Dan Masys <dmasys(at)cox.net>

 Subject: Re: Retractable

 

 

 <dmasys(at)cox.net>

 

 ---- David Maib <dmaib(at)mac.com> wrote: 

 

 > Don't get me wrong, the  

 > Bonanza is an awesome airplane, but less

 complexity and similar  

 > performance are very attractive to me now. 

 

 Had a fun experience last weekend.  Flew the -7A to

 Columbus Ohio (CMH) and landed

 at Lane Aviation, where there were acres of Bonanzas

 and Barons on the ramp,

 and a one day Beechcraft pilot proficiency refresher

 course in progress.  A

 couple of the Beech drivers struck up a conversation

 with me about that 'cute

 little homebuilt".  They were more or less in gloat

 mode until I told them that

 cute little homebuilt had a 75% cruise of 175kts and

 a service ceiling of 25,000

 feet on 11 gph.  Got very quiet, except for a

 quietly uttered 'cripes!'.

 

 -Dan Masys

 #40448 wiring & systems installation

 


	


You are entirely too nice and let them off easy.  I

would have added:



"BTW, my last annual cost me $35, I had to change the

oil.  This year I will not be so lucky.  I have to

replace the ELT battery, reline the brakes and I have

a blown nav night.  I figure the annual this year will

be a whopping $50 - $60."



You guys probably don't remember, but a while back

(10+ years) someone with a 4 got the brilliant idea of

engineering retracts.  The plane cruised slower,

climber slower and took more runway than an equivalent

4.  Needless to say, no one has tried to yank the gear

on an RV since.



Do not archive



Scott Gesele

N506RV, Race 53 (RV-6A, 800+ hrs)

N????? (Tom Gesele's RV-10 fuse sitting in my garage)

__________________________________________________

3edcft6(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:58 pm Post subject: Retractable

Scott Gesele wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  You guys probably don't remember, but a while back

(10+ years) someone with a 4 got the brilliant idea of

engineering retracts.  The plane cruised slower,

climber slower and took more runway than an equivalent

4.  Needless to say, no one has tried to yank the gear

on an RV since.

  




	




I don't think trying to put retracts on an RV is a good idea, but I 

remember reading several reports that said that plane was a fair bit 

faster (10 to 15 knots) than a standard 4.  I'm sure climb was worse 

though.  I'm not trying to say that it is in fact that much faster, but 

I"m not going to take your word that it was slower either.  If someone 

wants to try and get details, the tail number in the photo I have of it 

is  'C-FGPC'  I think it is, or was, in Canada.  I found the photos on 

the net somewhere and the site didn't have any direct information about 

the plane.



do not archive

-- 

Chris W

KE5GIX



Gift Giving Made Easy

Get the gifts you want & 

give the gifts they want

One stop wish list for any gift, 

from anywhere, for any occasion!

http://thewishzone.com

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum