One of the attractions of the RV10 is that being a 4-seater it can be used for a long trip for 2 or possibly 3 people, with “stuff”.
Peter wrote:
One of the attractions of the RV10 is that being a 4-seater it can be used for a long trip for 2
Hence the RV-14 and the GlaStar 
Look at the specs, they are truly something.
It’s a bit interesting to look at the development of the RVs (from memory, could be some errors)
It started with the -3 Fast, acro, short field, long range, looks cool, excellent handling. The next obvious step was a 2 seat version – the -4. Basically a tandem version of the -3 and also more space. Then they made the -6, a side by side version of the -4 and with more space for luggage. Most people prefer side by side. The -8 came next. Slightly enlarged version of the -4 with much more interior space and more luggage space. Probably the most important thing was modernized manufacturing, pre-punched skins everywhere, which mad it much easier to built, and also enable quick build (half build). The -8 is no replacement for the -4 though in terms of handling.
The -7 came as a modified and modernized -6. The -6 isn’t produced anymore. The -7 is slightly larger, but not that much, but can have a larger engine. The -7 is the most popular RV.
The -9 and -10 are very different from the others. They have a different airfoil, and are not aerobatic. They were made because many people don’t fly aerobatics, and would rather appreciate more efficiency while travelling far. The -10 is of course a 4 seater. They are stable (and dull) traveling machines. Otherwise lots of perfomance.
The -12 is an LSA version. Easy to build, but expensive and “heavy”, especially compared with modern European 600 kg UL. It surely is the RV with least “bang for the buck”.
The -14 is an improved -7. It’s larger and heavier though, more expensive (especially considering you need a larger engine), but ultimately the best overall RV. It can do everything, and do every single ting better than most other.
A airline pilot friend built a Glastar (more precisely a Glasair Sportsman 2+2), having built and restored a number of planes before (and after). The idea with that one is basically a two seater with a lot of space for stuff. He didn’t like it, the handling was apparently not sporty enough for his liking, and IIRC the noise level was higher than he liked. He sold it after a couple of months of flying it for $165K or something like that (a lot of money), unpainted with a factory new engine, nice panel and flight test restrictions flown off.
I found it interesting that the Glastar wing is built like a Luscombe all metal wing, few ribs and pretty much hollow, an unusual design.
The OMF Symphony was a circa 2002-2005 certified version of the tricycle gear Glastar, not widely appreciated either as far as I can tell but now available inexpensively. Only 29 USG fuel capacity. I’ve seen them offered for $50K and selling very slowly at that price – I like less known planes that offer a lot for a little, so once looked into these.
The RV-8 is a fine compromise how many are there in Europe ?
Silvaire wrote:
He didn’t like it, the handling was apparently not sporty enough for his liking, and IIRC the noise level was higher than he liked
It is more like a mini 206/185 kind of plane than a “sporty plane”, like an RV-4. The noise level in most homebuilts is high, especially in RVs (no mufflers, etc). Only those with European engines (Rotax and ULPower), but in particular Rotax have very low noise levels. But a Rotax don’t have 200 HP
The loudest one I’ve been in was a Wittman Tailwind with an IO-320 and CS prop, large diameter unmuffled collector exhaust exiting near your feet. On most planes, noise canceling headsets resolve noise issues but on that one, as soon as the throttle was opened for takeoff it overwhelmed the noise cancellation of Bose headsets. As a result the builder modified the exhaust a little and begrudgingly (he doesn’t like the added weight) added some sound insulation. It will still go 208 mph IAS, cost $25K for the very talented builder to construct, and made the cover of a well known homebuilt aircraft magazine. Link And it’s still loud
I was with the builder on the magazine photo shoot. Marc Cook (the magazine editor with lots of motorcycle magazine history too) explained that his Glastar would likely out climb the Tailwind since it had 180 HP. The Tailwind builder replied “you just go ahead, I’ll be in trail and we’ll see how it goes”. After takeoff he pulled into formation behind the Glastar, closed the throttle considerably so as not to overtake and smiled The Tailwind only weighs 875 lbs empty.
On topic, a million years ago the Tailwind was approved for UK construction and IIRC marketed locally by a company called AJEP.
Interesting that we equate cruising speed with “capability”, whereas something like a Bearhawk or Murphy Moose will generally beat any RV on real world door-to-door journey time – because RVs need a runway.
A Carbon Cub is a nice beach toy, but with such limited range and cargo/passenger capacity, it can’t really be considered a “bushplane”. Nor can any of the manufacturer’s performance figures be taken at face value – on which planet does an O-360 burn 6.5 gallons an hour at 75% power?
Jacko wrote:
on which planet does an O-360 burn 6.5 gallons an hour at 75% power?
Are they really saying that? I can’t find that claim on their web page.
because RVs need a runway
The tandem lightweight tailwheel RVs seem to cope quite well on relatively rough grass airstrips. Agree not suited for 31 inch Alaska Bushwheels type conditions.
