When pitted against each other, which aircraft prevails? The Cessna 182 Skylane or the Van’s RV-10? The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association‘s Dave Hirschman reveals the answers in this short video.
Reader Interactions
Share this story
Become better informed pilot.
Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily.
I’m adding my $0.02 and replying to comments because purchasing and flying an Experimental plane for over 8 years has been unbelievably enjoyable with the freedoms and expenses, with a PPL and as a non-A&P, currently enjoyed in the US.
Prior to SunNFun 2011 I had no idea that as a purchaser of an Experimental plane I could work on the plane myself. Some years ago I had a C172 and my own work on the Cessna was highly restricted/regulated. Now I’m not required to take the plane to a shop and accept an A&Ps price and work schedule. I can legally buy and install, at my own risk, radios and instruments that don’t meet FAA tests.
But when Garmin makes an electronic attitude indicator that sells with more software capability and less paperwork for $1000 less, I’ll accept the non-Cert version. Like buying nutritional supplements that the FDA doesn’t certify, buyer beware.
But Experimental planes are flying through Class B airspace, flying IFR, and carrying passengers. The Experimentals cannot accept any compensation, not even to accept pay for the fuel, or the pilot’s lunch.
There are thousands of Experimental planes flying with Lycs and Conts, dependable, reliable designs. IMHO worth a look… CM
Horrible comparison, or none at all !!! Compare a RV-10 with an RV-8, or RV-6 or 7, in other words planes of the same model, not a factory built Cessna with an experimental. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t prove squat !!! I built an RV-4 a few years ago, what an incredible design as for all the RV models of airplanes, but by no means does it compare with a factory built Cessna of any model…To my opinion this was a wasted effort. Nothing in common…You can do mild acrobatics with the RV design, not at all with the Cessna-182 etc. etc.Dave, I’ve always thought very highly of you and your expertise judgment, but oh,oh, something rotten it seems..Haha.
RE: Joe H G – Brief comparison of two four-seat GA planes. Both available for sale in the US used airplane marketplace. For pilots not familiar with Experimental planes this is a quick comparison of some characteristics of each plane. IMHO valuable enough for pilots, considering a four-seat plane, to spend 3 minutes watching the video. For awhile, maybe still, RV-10 kits were shipping to Brazil for professional assembly and sale similar to certified sales. CM
The Cessna 182’s been around A LOT longer than the Van’s RV-10.
RE: Dan C – Agreed. It might be interesting to know how many new 182s flew last year vs. how many new RV10s had first flights last year. And compare their used plane prices when equipped with similar avionics. Alternate airplanes to fly four-people. Clearly the 182 can haul serious cargo, the RV10 can haul… fast! CM
Experimental vs. Certified.
Experimental – If you build it, even without being an A&P, the builder should get permission to complete all work and yearly inspections on that exact plane that he/she built. No legal requirement to ever hire an A&P or IA to touch or sign off anything.
Experimental – If you buy it flying, 2nd or 50th owner. You or anyone you choose may perform any work on the airplane, engine, avionics. Once a year an A&P or higher qualified person must sign the log that it’s OK to fly.
No legal requirement for waiting or paying for a licensed person to legally install your ADSB-Out, swap a cylinder, or repair hanger rash.
I’m not working on any airplane that the owner is allowed to undo my work and blame his work on me.
RE: Scape Goat – Agree, your choice. In Texas for 8 years no issue to find an A&P agreeable to inspect and sign the yearly inspection Experimental log entry. Hopefully there is a level of trust between every aircraft owner and any mechanic that works on the plane. After all, with a certified plane an owner could unscrupulously loosen a bolt or remove a safety wire, and then blame someone else… CM
Exactly, or a Dodge Charger to a Ford Explorer.
Experimental aircraft are required to have a special airworthiness certificate issued.
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/experiment/
They also must have an annual condition inspection, like a certified aircraft;
however, the owner can get a repairman certificate to do the inspections.
The owner of a certified aircraft can do most work on the aircraft, but only under the guidance of an A&P, who will sign off the work.
RE: Jim H – Agree 100%.
However every A&P may not accept owner assistance/work. Mr. Scape Goat, and others, may be very cautious, and like some auto shops, signs and policy may require the owner stay out of the shop/hanger.
With any Experimental airplane you can tackle or hire anyone to help on any task except the inspection (if you don’t have the repairman certificate).
If you know a fiberglass expert who works on boats they might be the expert you need to help with canopy or cowling work. CM
RE: JimH – Quote “They also must have an annual condition inspection, like a certified aircraft;
however, the owner can get a repairman certificate to do the inspections.”
Actually I’ll disagree with “the owner”, it would be more accurate to say “the builder”. If you purchase an Experimental you cannot get a repairman certificate, and you cannot as the purchaser/owner sign off the yearly conditional inspection. Unless you are an A&P or higher rated.
During the rest of the year the owner, or anyone the owner chooses, may make any modification or repair, and the owner may sign the log and continue flying. CM
Carl,
thanks. You’re right. A non-builder owner has to have an A&P do the condition inspection.
This seems like an odd and limited comparison.
What about useful load?
What version of the 182 was this against?
Seems like this video is comparing an SUV (the 182) to a Pontiac Grand Prix (a somewhat fun, sorta fast car that can carry four people)
I read this article in AOPA Pilot, and immediately thought of the Cessna 182 always being compared to the Piper Cherokee, PA-28-235. The PA-28-235 compares well with the C182, except that the 235 has a 1,400 load capability , nearly double that for the RV-10 and C182.
The other difference is the RV-10 having 60 gallons fuel and 4.6 hrs endurance vs the C182 and PA-28-235 having 6 hrs + endurance and so greater range.
The RV-10 demonstrates what can be done with all the CAD capabilities and advanced materials.
But, I wonder what a certified RV-10 might look like.?
I don’t think this comparison means anything. Compare a Van’s RV-8 to a Cessna 140 or Piper 140. Yea the RV-8 will win hands down except for fuel burn. Of course new technology will win most often.