A head-to-head performance contest between two of the most capable and popular single-engine, four-seat airplanes on the market - the FAA-certified Cirrus SR22 and the Experimental-category Van’s Aircraft RV-10.
I currently own an SR22 but I am building and RV-10. This was the video I had been hoping for! Of course there exist many other differences (beyond CAPS) that were not covered in this short video. It would be very interesting to see a more in-depth contrast/comparison video of these great aircraft. I love my SR22, but this video has inspired me to get back to my workshop to finish up the RV-10! Thanks!
Being experimental and allowing ability to modify and service at lower cost is another RV-10 advantage. Mine would have the keyless entry and interior lights added. BRS parachute. Plus shorter wings for higher speeds, which I have seen on other rv models.
The RV is an impressive performer. I think you should also have discussed useful load, cabin space, and range. The Cirrus in the video is a FIKI-equipped aircraft, which are typically a couple of knots slower than a "clean wing", although that wouldn't have made that much difference in your results. You also compared a 2010 Cirrus, which is fine, but it should be noted that from 2013, the Cirrus has a gross weight increase that gives it pretty fantastic useful load. I fly one with 1265 pounds useful load -- enough for four adults and full tanks, with a little left over for baggage. That'll get you ~700nm range with reserves. And that airplane has the parachute, and air conditioning! Still, the RV has huge bang for the buck and it's easy to see why there are thousands of them flying.
Wrong. The FIKI system sits behind a titanium leading edge on the wing...there is ZERO added drag associated with it. The RV10 uses an aftermarket product from RDD called Thermx. It costs $20k.
Not even close when you compare cost even builder assisted RV-10s ownership cost is even better for the RV. BRS makes a RV-10 system brsaerospace.com/rv-10/
@@gbigsangle3044 Zero added drag doesn't mean faster speed. You still have to worry about a change in CG. Also, the Cirrus TKS system costs more than Therm-X since it's for FIKI.
@@Ibrahimarm Sure. But be careful moving a CG too far aft reduces pitch stability. But you can gain some fuel efficiency and a little more cruising speed doing it.
Not so fast. The BRS system is INTEGRATED into the aircrame in very specific ways. The harness has hard-points and it needs to be engineered to work with any given aircraft.
@@tedwarner1041 Yes. But consider that in the Cirrus the chute is not just 'added.' The full suite includes 28g seats, airbag seatbelts, a crumple zone in the panel, over-built main gear designed to collapse away from the center of the aircraft, and a special simulator and comprehensive training by Cirrus for CAPS. RV is a great product...but building a kit aircraft takes a LONG time and requires special skills no one should learn on an aircraft they build for themselves. The RV SLSA is factory built and is also a great product. But just adding a chute to the plane , though better than nothing, may still end up a disaster if the seats, panel and main gear sabotage the effort.
@@speedomars3869 Understood. What is nice is the RV is much lighter than the Cirrus so should touch down slower perhaps. Less impact. You are right about building. I might buy an RV in the future. I would buy one that was built by someone who has built many of them. I have a TB10 now. The RV's are amazing. Fast, efficient, and ACRO. Not many if any are that. Cheers
I built and fly a RV-10. Best bang for the buck by far. I wish for flight into known icing capability which is only available in a certified plane. Living in WI there is a lot of utility gained with FIKI.
@@mavicminipilot Not yet, but getting closer. Ordering the engine in the next month. I have had some family issues so the progress on the build has been slow.
The advantages of a BRS can be disputed. Probably saves more lives in unpopulated areas but adds risk in built-up areas. Point in case; This week a German plane pulled the chute and colided with an apartment building. It killed both on board, as well as someone in the apartment it collided with. Remember, as soon as you pull the chute you change from PIC to PAX.
And the Cirrus's horsepower advantage only exists if the RV builder puts a 50hp less engine in. RV10 is just an absolute stellar value if you don't mind pounding your own rivets (and I think building is fun so count me in)!
They should re-run it with a parachute mounted RV-10. I think this adds 80lbs to the RV-10. Plus, the way the straps are integrated into the RV-10 creates more form drag. These two items will affect performance, but to what extent? Additionally (like someone else mentions) fuel burn, payload, range, and cost are some additional items for comparison. Fun video though.
I can have four RV10s for the price of Cirrus. Or you can have RV3 + RV8 + RV14 and RV10 and still have money in my pocket :). And yet if someone wants to give me a SR22 I would be glad to have it
The RV10 is a kit. Seems people forget the TIME and LABOR to assemble one. And then you have an EXPERIMENTAL after you are done..a plane not worth as much as many steer away from them not knowing the build or maintenance history.
not even remotely true about the value.... Well kept, fully built RV-10's are going for 2x - 3x the kit price... if you can even find one for sale... still way cheaper than a 22
Gorgeous finish on the rv. Survivability with an engine failure is not necessarily better with the chute unless you are over hostile terrain. I would prefer landing in a field or on a road any day and not wrecking my airplane. The RV has a lower stall and landing speed so likely easier to manage in a forced landjng. If you pull that chute the airframe is toast. Over forest and rocks is a different story. Also I totally disagree that the big differentiating feature is the chute. The obvious difference is one is a homebuilt and one is a certified airplane (to say nothing of the price). That is huge! One you have to build, or buy used knowing that no 2 are the same and who knows if it is well built. But on the upside you can change anything you want, yourself, and if you can get a repairman certificate you can maintain it yourself and save a lot of money. So for a hands on type the RV is very attractive. The cirrus is certified, off the shelf, you know what your getting, but you have to keep it stock and have it professionally maintained. Probably not an issue if you can afford to buy the airplane. Some guys don’t even want to change their oil themselves. So two very different ownership scenarios that suit very different types of pilots.
Willie Rhodes with the quick build kits available a builder would still spend hundreds of thousands less than a new cirrus. Most of the RV owners I talk with mention low cost ownership and upgrades as a highlight.
I think this video indicates that, even if price was identical - the RV might've been more bang for the buck. Esp. since it's possible to install the CAPS parachute to it, if you so desire. With the existing price differences it's kind of a no-brainer. I guess people are scared away by the "experimental" labels on the RV. People think a paper with a certification stamp means something... Especially lately. The B-727 MAX had one (or much more than one) - how much good did that do? And the C-172 now has 13 (thirteen, Karl!) fuel drain holes - just in order to comply. Experimental aircraft are built by engineers. Certified ones - by lawyers. As long as it's not "truly experimental" aka one of a kind Joe's homemade design - I'd take any of the popular, well known Experimentals any day.
Let's just compare the airframe life. Cirrus rates their airframes to 4820 total hrs or 10 years. Metal aircraft go way farther than that!! The Cessna I trained in had over 17k hrs on the airframe!!
So are Cirrus pilots trained to pull the chute for an engine failure? I assumed they'd still try to find a nice spot to glide to a landing and only pull the chute if there was some extenuating circumstances that prevented a forced landing. I'd rather pick my spot than let the plane float down and land on someone's roof. I could see using it over terrain where a landing is impossible or dangerous.
No contest. The RV is much, much cheaper and is more engaging to fly. The Sr22 sidestick is sprung and removes all the feel. The Sr22 is very good looking but that's where it ends. The RV is more economical and more of a pilot's aircraft. The Cirrus is like a car with wings. But it's the enormous difference in price which makes the RV win overall. The Sr22 price is ridiculous given its performance, range, and (lack) of economy.
The RV 10 is really impressive and most importantly AFFORDABLE !!!! The Cirrus is well over $700,000 new! Yikes!!! I fly a Bonanza V-tail and a friend has RV10. He is about 10 knots faster than me. If I sell the Bo I will look for RV10 for sure
They are apples and oranges to some extent. Regarding price, you have to build the RV10. Are you even capable of it, and if so, what is your time worth? Sure, you can buy a nice used one, if you are certain you trust the builder. But then the price advantage of the RV shrinks as you can get a pretty nice Cirrus for a bit more than a nice RV10. Also, the SR22 in the video is a FIKI plane. So on a day with known ice, the Cirrus flies and the RV sits. That’s critical to some pilots, not important to others... but apples and oranges. Finally, support. I know the RV10’s are mainstream, and the support mimics that of a certified plane, but the owner operator should still be a different breed of pilot to be truly safe. Someone who is comfortable reading service bulletins voluntarily, who has a greater understanding of how the plane is built from the inside out.... With a Cirrus, a lot of those things are handled for you by an international network of pro’s. Work with a Cirrus shop, or at least someone very familiar with them, and your plane is going to be maintained to the highest standard possible. In the experimental world, you have to be more proactive to achieve that. I love both planes, certainly... but there’s a LOT more to it than performance advantages.
There by Air the big thing you are missing for “support” is all of the mentioned support you talked about on a cirrus has to be done at a cirrus certified shop. Nearest one to us is 2 hours by plane. And the price is 3 times the cost of the local a&o that builds airplanes and can service an experimental. Most from big cities don’t understand that. We’ve priced out a cirrus sr22 when we were upgrading our plane and it was well over 5 times the cost to maintain compared to even the beech bonanza. That doesn’t include the inconvenience of having to fly it to a large city for all the work. We would love to have an sr22 but when he details of owning actually come up it’s quite a bit more money over the initial cost on maintenance and repairs. That’s certified to certified comparison btw. Also, I kept seeing people say build quality on rv10. Many people, and I do mean many, have a professional shop build their rv10. I guess people forget about that. If you pay 80k to have one professionally build it still doesn’t add up to the price of a new cirrus equally loaded. All the rv10 we looked at for purchase were build by shops, not private owners. Actually didn’t see a single one in trade a plane last summer (while we were looking) that was self built.
My rv10 has heated wings, prop and tail. I think what you are forgetting is that if ic e is around, your ass should stay on the ground anyway. There isn't a aircraft made that can out do mother nature. Remember that and you have a good chance of surviving as a pilot!!
@@josephhann8844 they mentioned that. SR22 has higher HP so higher fuel burn, cost per hour though dependent on what you install on an RV10 it's normally going to be cheaper because the parts are at experimental also if you do your own annual you don't have to save up for it. Finally price to own fully equipped isn't a very common thing in the experimental world (for example if you buy an RV-10 kit it doesn't contain any avionics). If you include things like avionics under fully equipped then it would be dependent on your preference's (eg an MGL iEFIS would be cheaper than a Garmin G3X touch). The real question assuming you have the money to buy one or the other would be do you want to spend the time and energy building an airplane or do you want to go flying right away?
@@josephhann8844 I have read a blog of some guy that onws 2 RV's ,10 & 14 and as for 10, he said kit is 48k $ without engine and avionics and interior,so he said,from buying part to ready to fly condition ,you spend 3 times the price of the kit.. so ,I estimate that rv10 cost cca 200k $ brand new.. I dont know the Cirrus price tho ..
I have been in both, rv10 has more room, especially in the rear seats. The RV10 will carry more weight and go farther on the tanks. There is no 4 place certified airplane as good as a rv10!!
Those that keep saying build quality depends on individuals have overlooked the fact that many of the rv10 (all that we looked at for purchase) were actually built by a professional shop. So if you add the 80k to the cost it’s professionally built and still cheaper than a cirrus. There isn’t a shop within 2 hours flight time of us that would even service a cirrus and the one 2 hours away was 5 times the labor rate than ps in our local area. Another food for thought. Also, the parachute system actually hasn’t proven to reduce the fatality rate of the cirrus aircraft. They still to this day have a higher fatality than most of the Cessna models even without the parachute system. I don’t have the link for the data but the faa publishes it so google it. On that note we didn’t purchase either rv10 or cirrus so I’m not rooting for either. Just pointing out things people overlook when deciding on an airplane.
Lacinda Beggs 51% rule applies to the "Amateur built" category of experimental aircraft. Our field mechanic has 2 kits in progress now. If the owner doesn't build 51% then he /she isn't eligible to be the builder or repairman. It doesn't mean the plane doesn't exist. S high percentage of experimental aircraft are not built by the owner. It's no different than buying one from an individual already built except a professional a&p is the one that built it not a non a&p. Experimental category is non factory built. A local shop is non factory. So the a&p's name is on the build certificate.
@@ellavaderknows This rule applies to all the builders, and not just the owner. There can be 100 builders and one owner for an experimental airplane and the 51% rule still applies because the kit is a lot less than 51%, even for the quickbuild kit. In this situation, the owner cannot get the repairman certificate to perform condition inspection. There are many build centers in the US that will work with the owners to build the RV10, or other popular RV airplane. Synergy Air is a well known build center. It will help you get the RV10 in the air for less than 1 month, minus the paint. It had assisted the building of hundreds if not thousands of RV from sheet metal to airplanes, many in less than one month. Build center will add about 80K to the cost as said but the owner will get as close to professional built airplane and with the top rated workmanship. This is why Vans RV are so popular because it is safer than the 60 years old Cessna, the owners can modify their airplanes they way they want, and the RV outperforms most production airplane.
@@phatvu3811 I'm Assuming What You Said Is True & Very Surprised There Aren't More Flying Than There Are! Considering The Overall Cost, 80K Seems Reasonable Considering What You Get For Your Dollar & In A Month's Time!?! Regarding Previous Comments, Someone Said The Cirrus With All The Options Is 1M!?! Again, Assuming That's True, That's Just Downright Overpriced & Also One Commenter Mentioned The Airframe Is Limited To 4820 TT Or 10 Years. I Just Can't Believe They Sell As Well As They Do. I'm Old So Naturally, I'd Rather Have A Plane Made Out Of Aluminum Than One That's Not. I Wonder Is Anyone Else Considering The Build Center Option. Thanks.
Most RV10 use the Lycoming IO540 while the Cirrus uses the Continental I0550. The RV10, being an experimental, can use any engine but Vans sells the brand new I0540 for basically at an OEM price, which is even cheaper than an overhauled engine.
Its not all about raw performance. You need to compare all the features including FIKI, parachute, air conditioning, comfort, etc. Clearly the Cirrus is a much more feature rich airplane. Add those features to a RV-10 and lets test performance and useful load again. If you count the 3000 hours to build a nice RV10 it is not cheap either. I asked 2 RV10 owners the cost of building their RV10 two years ago and they both said around $240K. They were both nicely done, but certainly not the caliber of a Cirrus. Add $50/hr for your time and your at near $390K and years to deliver an airplane. Personally when I I look at a RV I see a bare bones light weight airplane with a powerful engine providing a good power to weight ratio and hence the performance. Not too many features on them and you better be a skilled pilot because they look like the gear would bend easy. The nose wheel on an RV6 or 7 looks like it came off a shopping cart. I notice many used RVs on the market have low time. I wonder why.
RV it's a great plane! how ever, I take off better knowing I have a BRS on my back :) same for landing, fly over water and mountain terrain... I don't want to make my point, but for me, I don't change the cirrus, beside, (i have fly both) it's way more confortable for 2+ travel time...
@@kickkid29 If i didn't fly over water (short leg) or mountains, I can't fly here! I'm not commercial, so i fly when I want, don't have to pay nobody! :)
Sabe o que falta para estás Belas máquinas? Um belo Motor Turbo movido a Jet-a1 ☝️🇧🇷 Pois ⛽AVGAS no 🇧🇷 e impossível de Comprar ⛽o custo e alticimo. Se fizer "Novos Modelos" movidos a jet - a1 vai Vender e muito !!!!
In other words, the SR22 had its bottoms handed to it in a performance battle. While that may be the case, the additional options and some of the reasons why the SR22 is heavier cannot be found in a standard RV10; De-ice system, upgraded avionics, Oxygen, luxurious cabin, parachute, and the list goes on.
This rv10 in the test has all the luxury leather interior and full redundant ifr avionics just as the cirrus. The Van's design has always excel in take off and landing
Seems to me the rv beat the cirrus in every catagory and by a wide margin. The initial cost and cost to operate the cirrus really puts the cirrus in a different category. Also I question the safety benefits of the brs. Personally I think the more forgiving plane that allows for slower flight and shorter runways is most likely the safer plane.
I think a high end sports car would blow away a “sand rail” but that didn’t happen even at 9500’ where the high end performance machine should be in its comfort zone. Is high end performance car defined by fuel burn? Yeah ok then the cirrus is the better plane.
@@ellavaderknows The reason the cirrus is REQUIRED per certification to have BRS is because of its inherent difficulty to recover from a spin. It’s proven not to be the safest aircraft. and certainly not the best. Im not saying I wouldn’t love to own one though. But hey you bought one so it must be the best. 😊
@@dennisnbrown Cirrus is approved for spins by the EASA (European version of the FAA) and are the same planes available in the United States and it is not "inherently difficult to recover from a spin." This is urban legend. The reason that the Cirrus is not approved for spins in the US is because Cirrus did not pursue spin certification with the FAA.
gmcjetpilot no I doubt that. With a decent cockpit it will be over $200k and it is a helluva lot of work. Even a quickbuild is a daunting task. You have to do it for the love of building. You DON’t do it as a way to save money on an airplane. You won’t finish. Or you buy one used for $250k. Great airplane though.
gmcjetpilot Just flew today in my friends Cirrus 2005 non turbo I think and his purchase price was less than $200k and what an amazing plane! I personally would rather have the RV10😀
@@kenthigginbotham2754 No put down of Cirrus. The RV-10 also beat the C182. Safety? RV-10 stalls at slower speed in a metal airframe will deform, absorb energy. Where composite will just transfer all the energy into the people then just fracture, no yield. RV-10 can be fitted with Chute.
The quickbuild kit for RV10 is $70k. Vans says the build time is 2000-2200 hours of work will complete and 40% of that for quickbuild. In short, most take YEARS to get one done.
@@rebelyell22 I am aware, I would have liked to see entry and recovery of both, partially developed, fully developed and recovery times, altitude loss to recovery etc.. Not the factory numbers- but on video so it is more tangible. I think showing those practices builds confidence in potential buyers/builders.
Another data point is that the RV-10 has light, well-harmonized controls that make it a delight to fly. The SR-22 flies like a truck and is no fun at all in my opinion. You have to use the trim constantly and the short stick is very stiff.
The Cirrus doesn’t have a stick. It’s a side yoke. The Cessna TTx had the side stick, and some see it as a better plane that lacked marketing. Now I’ve seen an RV10 that had a side stick....... that was ingenious. Talk about freeing up a lot of room.
Interesting. With the RV-10 being lighter and with less horsepower proves that bigger and more powerful isn't always best. Too bad RV-10 couldn't go certified, factory built. I wonder which of these can go further in range? I'm thinking that contest would also go to the RV-10.
its pretty similar. vans says the RV-10 will get around 850 miles at 75% cruise and about 1000 miles at 55% cruise. Cirrus didn't have that information on their website so i had to look around, what i found was around 1100 miles at 65%. The RV-10 cruises at around 190mph-197mph at 75% depending on spec and the Cirrus cruises at around 210mph. But keep in mind that the Cirrus SR-22 has a fuel capacity of 92USG and the RV-10 has a capacity of 60USG so the RV-10 is way more efficient. The RV-10 burns around 10Gal/Hr and the Cirrus burns a whopping 18Gal/Hr.
Well, "What's Her Face" Said, "Cirrus is not approved for spins in the US because Cirrus did not pursue spin certification with the FAA." Wouldn't That Be Illegal!?!
If you added the BRS to the RV10 and then reran the comparison then the two would be much closer. I'm not bashing RV10's (I would love to win this one). I'm only pointing out that the flight safety items were not 1:1 comparison.
You really think that the decision comes down to a parachute??? More like cost to buy vs time to build. I can’t spend over half a million more for the cirrus so I guess I am building.
Why does distance come into a climb competition? It’s time to altitude, period. Also, cirrus developed the chute because it did not have a consistently recoverable spin. The rv10 can recover from a spin.
Very good point. How many cirri has spun too low on final or the pilot didn’t think “pull soon, pull often” and it was too late? Distance comes into climb factoring because of clearance of obstacles past the runway.
@@onethousandtwonortheast8848 ok but they are implying that the cirrus is better because it covers more distance. If distance factors in to a climb contest due to obstacle clearance then you want LESS distance for the same altitude. So their conclusion doesn’t make much sense.
I LOVE all things RV, but not all RV-10’s have the same consistency in build, fit and finish. This was a pairing of an awesome RV-10 VS. a nice Cirrus. You’re not going to get the same performance every time in the RV. But I know that consistency in the citrus comes at a huge premium
Certified vs non certified. I'll take certified over non certified every time, however I will never buy a Cirrus. I knew someone who was killed by mechanical failure and that's reason enough for me
RV 10 - 2021 built Aircraft, ready to fly now, maxed out avionics and engine = Less than $500,000 SR 22 - 2018 Maxed out avionics and engine = Greater than $800,000 as of 1/25/2021 (Trade a plane, controller, Barnstormer and two Broker friends.)
@@reginaldmeintjes504 I would rather have an RV-10 and then just land the plane on a road in 600 ft when the engine quits. Saves the $20000 to have the Cirrus inspected and the parachute repacked, assuming it didn't come down in the trees and get totaled.
Yeah, It Seems Like There's A-lot Of Cirrus Owners Here Trying To Justify Their Paying Such A High Price For A Chinese Aircraft. It May Be "Made In America" But The Money All Goes Back To Their Home Country. I'm Actually Not A Hypocrite Though, I Buy Crap Made In China From Walmart All The Time. 8-)
I love how everyone is obsessed with comparing the price of an experimental homebuilt and a fully certified factory built aircraft. Guys... apples and pineapples. Both are fruits and they sound similar but come on. Do I need to explain to you the difference in process and cost that goes into either?
Useful load, Cruise Speed LOP, Range, family of 4 with baggage - c’mon the SR-22 wins hands down. No disrespect to the Vans, but it’s all about your mission.
Hard to compare the two, love the Cirrus but I would would take the RV 10 then have 400k left over to buy a superstol xl then decide which other airplanes I would want to buy with the 250k that was still left over.
Family of 4 with baggage is exactly my RV10's mission. I have a little over 1000lbs useful load, and can still have 700lbs in the plane with full fuel. Fuel lasts over 5 hours, cruising about 170kts at 11.5gph. How does an SR22 compare to that?
@@edkranz Yeah, It Seems Like There's A-lot Of Cirrus Owners Here Trying To Justify Their Paying Such A High Price For A Chinese Aircraft. It May Be "Made In America" But The Money All Goes Back To Their Home Country. I'm Actually Not A Hypocrite Though, I Buy Crap Made In China From Walmart All The Time. 8-)
This video just proved the exact opposite. The reason they sell more is that people don't have to build their own. And I get mistaken for a Cirrus in my RV10 all the time. Even "airplane people" mistake the two, so ramp presence isn't exactly a difference.
@@edkranz I Couldn't Agree More. For Me, Ramp Presence Is The Least Important Aspect Of Aviation. The Last Thing I Would Ever Care About Is What Someone Else Thinks About My Airplane Except The A&P During Annual, Of Course! 8)
The Cirrus is the best airplane ever built. It is like a cross between a Cadillac and a Ferrari on the inside and out. You know how you can build a RV 10 for cheap? Just follow behind it and pick the parts up that fall off.
Lacinda Beggs and you actually picked up parts falling off an RV10? No need to insult the experimental aviation world. And I admire your portfolio of planes. Very impressive.
@@capncrunch9313 Yeah, It Seems Like There's A-lot Of Cirrus Owners Here Trying To Justify Their Paying Such A High Price For A Chinese Aircraft. It May Be "Made In America" But The Money All Goes Back To Their Home Country. I'm Actually Not A Hypocrite Though, I Buy Crap Made In China From Walmart All The Time. 8-)
