Vans RV 10 or Sling TSI?

I am trying to decide which experimental airplane I would like to build in the future.

[mojogrip]

You’re asking the right question: what do I actually need? Not how much airplane I can get. Resale value is also another thing to consider. The first used TSi sold for $350, 000 recently. Happy searching and good luck on your training.

[ibgarrett]

Sling builder here and stumbled across your channel. Great questions on which way to go. I'm not really into the reglious wars of Vans v. Sling. Each has their own mission, it's just the RV10 and SilngTsi is different shades of the same color. I primarily chose the Sling for the ease of build and time of the build. I certainly would enjoy building an RV10 but I'm mostly solo building (it's amazing how much of building a plane can be a solo project). Some friends of mine have been building their RV10 for the past three years and I'm at month 15 and we likely will finish the builds about the same time. Plus there were two of them working on the RV10.

I'm guessing you're in NH based on your channel name. So you're lower in elevation. The RV10 will perform better at lower altitudes. I'm in the Rockies and my field elevation is just shy of 6, 000MSL which works out to roughly 30% reduction in HP on a naturally aspirated engine. On a warm day here the DA can reach 9, 000 easily. When you fly higher in the planes turbo becomes a critical component and currently the RV10 is unable to support a turbo on their engine (although there is one out there somewhere in the world). So even if you're focusing on fuel consumption, the performance starts leveling out when you get close to 15, 000MSL. (this is all low-wing numbers, the high wing is slower than the low wing).

One commenter mentioned the TBO on the Rotax being 1200hrs. While this is currently true, Rotax has a history of having low TBO numbers until enough of their engines have been used in the real world and evaluated. I expect in the next year or two a paper TBO update will come out moving the TBO to 1500 to 2000 hours. So I'm not overly concerned about this timeline. I started my flying career in light sport aircraft and the 912 was 1200hrs when I started. They moved it to 2000hrs shortly after I bought into a share of an LSA.

The 600lb weight difference between the RV10 and the Sling will be noticeable for sure. The max gross on a 172 is around 2300lbs and by its very nature is a heavier airplane in empty weight which is around 1600lbs - 600lbs heavier than the Tsi. You WILL feel these effects especially in turbulence, but like any other airplane, just pull the throttle back to get into maneuvering speed and ride it out. I've flown 172's Pipers, Bonanza's and 210's - they all are heavier. By far the Bonanza was one of the heavier (solid feeling) but most nimble airplanes I ever flew. I'd go with a V35B or F33 in a heartbeat, but then it comes back to fuel consumption. That being said, the Tsi is light on the stick and very quick to respond. If you haven't yet - book yourself a trip out to Torrence and take their Tsi for a spin. I wasn't willing to commit to years of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars in time and money to build one before I flew it and it was what I expected it to be.

I can tell you this from my build so far - the physical process of putting the control surfaces (wings, flaps, ailerons, elevator and stabilizer) is a piece of cake on the Tsi. The quick build kit certainly is attractive, but I went with the full build to save some money and put it into the avionics.

Of course the hardest parts of the build are not the things you think they should be. The religious battles of to prime/corrosion proof the metal and what color to paint it is just an impossible decision making process.

Lastly - if you are even thinking about building anything right now, lead times on everything is quite extreme. The Tsi is about 10 months from order before the first shipment arrives. The high wing Tsi is easily over 2 years out before folks putting money down now are going to see anything. My RV10 builder friend has been waiting for over 13 months for their engine. So plan accordingly.

[shinew]

Like you, I have always wanted to build an airplane. Like you, I am a student pilot. Like you, I am also having challenges deciding which plane to build. Like you, I have to do more research. It is a great and exciting time to be involved in the growing Experimental Aircraft movement. Good luck to us both, and to the thousands of others, in reaching our dreams.

[jmcgaz]

If you slow the RV-10 down to a Sling's speed, its fuel burn will be comparable. I don't know what a sling costs to build, but I expect my current QB RV-10 build to top $200k. Fuel costs get lost in the noise after spending that much for a plane.
The Sling sounds like an awesome plane, but after owning a Mooney for 25 years, I wanted more room and ease of entry. I don't really need four seats, but the aforementioned is even why I chose the RV-10 over the RV-14. It looks to me like the high wing Sling might be a better choice in that regard, as well.

[chrispelley]

i’m building an RV-10 so probably biased a little. The decision for me was:
- i need range and the rv-10 has great ER tank options
- i want the useful load
- i will use electronic injection on my rv-10 so that’s a non issue
- lots of aftermarket support
- Having a background in aircraft maintenance i like the idea of bucked rivets over pulled rivets.
- i want the wider cabin

The RV-10 is quite the project and lots of work so know going into it that it is a much bigger project. In the end it will meet my needs. both are probably great airplanes. If your using it for cross country i would suspect with the higher speed and electronic injection there wouldn’t be a massive economy difference.

[kurtfox]

My tail is complete and partly through my right wing. The build process solo has been great. No real issues that weren't self-induced. Going for the slow build kit with no extras from the factory. After having flown the Sling for a 1.0, there was no way I was going to fly anything else. I also love the idea of not having to babysit the engine. Plus it just handles with an agility I didn't expect in a 4 seat aircraft. I also love how well it stalls. It's just such a good plane. Or at least 135WT is... we will see how mine turns out.

[BobbyPilot]

RV10 builder here. 4yrs. Maybe 1 more to go. I'd say there are a few significant differences to consider. 1) The build time. No brainer here the RV10 is significant. My guess is that egos mostly UNDER-report their actual time. We're at about real-estimate of 2300 hrs and the avionics and engine arent in. :) Biggest factor is that stinkin fiberglass canopy and doors. They were a year by themselves for us. So you HAVE to enjoy the build process, the fabrication and craftsmanship imo to favor a -10 over the Sling in that category. If you dont like building and you just want to fly...a kit project probably isnt for you. 2) The community. The Sling builder community is growing but...Im sorry it will be a LONG time before it reaches Vans level. :) You're likely to find someone who has a 10 or who is even building a 10 within 25 miles of you Id bet. There are 5 active -10 projects within 25miles of me that I know of. The community is awesome and if you find someone building a 10 nearby I wouldnt hesitate to reach out to them to get a ride or check out their project. 3) Comfort. Have you sat in each airplane in each seat? If not, let me tell you the Sling is a bit interesting to get in and out of (kinda difficult, esp for the less mobile... Hope to do something like angle flight or some other kind of charity flight ops? If so, the Sling might be a challenge. I dont know that for certain but based on my experience getting in and out of one... yuk.) and Sling leg room doesnt hold a candle to the 10. If the pilot seat in the -10 is all the way back, there is still more leg room in the back seat than in the back of my Subaru Outback. Its huge inside. So if you're tall or have a family and expect to pack it full... The 10 likely wins here imo. 4) This one is harder to quantify but one big factor for me was reputation and # of planes flying. There are over 1100 RV1-'s completed. That is a lot of flight hours and other folks testing airframe and longevity of the -10 for me. Anyway novel here, sorry, but do visit a Sling project and an RV10 project and do fly (and I mean hands on the stick and peddles) both before dropping the deposit. If you're ever in KC, hit me up. Its too big of a decision to rely on YouTube commentaries alone. :)

[TheShays]

I was in the same situation 3 years ago, I was considering both, even though they seem like the same plane I don't think the mission of each is the same. Today I fly a RV10 and I am extremely happy.

[bossymodo]

I have not done the math but there is an important issue that you neglect to mention. Speed vs GPM. When I learned to fly over 20 years ago I met a guy with a Pitts who said "A fast airplane is an economical one." Even if a plane does burn more gallons per hour, if you get to your destination in fewer hours it might still use less fuel. The Pitts compared to a Glasair for a trip to Florida from Endicott New Yuck was way more expensive in the Pitts because, after every 8 hours of flying, he added an additional $100 to the fuel budget for a hotel room. For only a slight difference in speed, speed vs GPM or LPM for the non American crowd might not make much difference but if you are building your own plane you can choose what engine to put in it. DeltaHawk is finally certified so that will make a huge difference in fuel economy if you go that way with the engine. Having said all of that I really could care less what kind of plane you build.

[AusVelocity]

Sounds like you think the tsi is the better option. I think it is. I looked at the rv-10 and found it to be very time-consuming to build, expensive to run, and maintain. The kit price isn't bad, but the new engine price is stupid, and that's not including all the fwf gear you will need. Remember you'll need to spend thousands on tools. I also didn't like the vertical bar right in the middle of the windscreen, I'm not going to say it was poor engineering but c'mon.

I got a quote for the tsi, The kit is pricy and the parachute option is good and may not be a negotiable item if the wife hears about it. The engine, while designed in the 90s, it's a lot more modern than the lycoming, but the price is still crazy given its size.
I also thought the 141 Hp (135Hp) was still rather small for 4 people, but the tsi seems to pull it off. In the end, it was still going to be too expensive to maintain. Cheaper to run but i didn't like the idea of having to climb up over and down to ingress/egress the plane. Not really into high wings either, the design seems ancient, I wanted something modern.

As far as reliability goes, who knows, all aircraft engines have been known to explode while in mid flight, from 150s to SR22s. Doesn't seem right in this day and age but here we are. Which one more than others...? you might think you got the odds on your side but you're still rolling the dice.

Experimental is the way to go, buy rather than build, if you want to get flying soon. I'm building, so I'm not sure what limitations you would have if you're not the builder.

Certified GA, you would be forking out the thousands routinely and always wondering how much life you have left in the engine, if you're lucky you just need a new cylinder(s) every few years. Like you probably know, you have to fly often and probably when you prefer not too (costing money) or replace the engine sooner (costing lots of money). There's no getting off lightly. Certified engines and A&Ps are not cheap.

If you want to travel, fast will save you money. remember to evaluate MPG rather than gallons per hour. I think only student pilots think gallons per hour is important.

I chose a different route to get 4 people into the sky while saving the 10s of thousands (maybe even a hundred thousand) for fuel and travelling, it just won't be soon.
Have a watch of my vids if you're still considering your options.

[andremarais]

High wing you are sitting at the bottom of the pendulum Low wing you are above. You can sit i9n the shade of a high wing when parked and also see the ground on either side of you. Greetings from South Africa. Sling country.

[stephenmiles]

Good luck! They both seem like great aircraft.

On the subject of economy, the sling can run on Mogas, so if you have a way to safely transport fuel, that could save you $3 plus/gallon (on top of its already more fuel efficient design).

[nickm]

You think you know what you want but you aren't asking the right questions. You'll find no matter what you choose, you won't be able to guess how you will actually use it let alone the questions that haven't come up yet like insurance, maintenance, repairs, builder support, you might be surprised at the difference. I have a RV 6A and it's perfect for MOST of the flying I and the wife want to do. I do wish sometimes I had a 4 place, but most of the time it's perfect. She's small, fast and good on fuel. The best advice I can give is FLY, not build, buy a good experimental and FLY! Once you do that you can get a better idea of how you will actually use a plane and then build one to suit. Taking that build step and investment of time is just putting the cart before the horse IMO... I can tell you this, you should just get whatever you think you'll enjoy and can afford and enjoy the ride, you won't make a perfect decision and it doesn't matter. Just...FLY.

[USA-GreedyMenOfNoIntegrity]

Your specs are incorrect for the standard build, standard engine RV-10. It’s more like 160 kt cruise, 10.5-14.0 gph at 10-13K. They both are nice aircraft. I built my SB 10 in 2000 hours. Two years first rivet to first test flight. My wife and children helped when able. Perseverance.

[kyleboatright]

I'd like to see a side by side performance comparison of the two with each loaded with 1, 000 lbs of stuff. I think most would be much more comfortable about clearing the trees at the end of the runway in the 260 hp RV than the 141 (?) hp sling. The math just says the RV will substantially out accelerate and outclimb the Sling at heavier weights. At lighter weights, it'll still have better runway performance, but the delta won't be as noticeable.

[JonMulveyGuitar]

My first lessons were at Sling in Torrance. And I have been checked out in an RV10. The Slings are awesome and modern. The RV is larger and 500 pounds heavier. (empty wt) And that 30 kt difference is a factor on long hauls. The Slings still feel like light sports. The RV10 gives you a more stable comfortable flying experience. And not as tight inside as the TSI. They are both amazing! Now I am shopping for a Mooney M20J. (deposit going down today) And the same arguments are made between the Mooney's and Bonanza's. Mooney pilots seem to "graduate" to Bonanza's. for the same reason's. Lol. I was considering the same build and planes. Best of luck.

[ashokaliserilthamarakshan]

Good luck with your decision. I have never flown an RV10. I've flown in both the Sling HW and LW. Try both, you might find the Sling HW to be more stable and a better platform for IFR. I have a LW and pretty happy with it.

[Davida]

I would not choose based on riveting. Easy to learn and a very small part of the build. Also, what would the fuel burn of the RV-10 be if you slowed it down to the sing speed. To me the planes do not even compare.

[AviationWP]

Great video. Thanks for this. I really like everything about the Sling HW. I wonder if it could handle 26 Alaskans on the tail dragger version and do some Bush flying. Or carbon fiber amphibious floats.

[airops]

The RV-10 feels like more of a true four seater airplane given the roomier cabin, particularly in the rear seats.