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.
Thanks for commenting! I really appreciate the in-depth comparison and review that your personal experience has given you. Most likely if I do end up building, it will be a solo build, and therefore the ease of the TSI is also a bit more attractive for me as well. Thanks again!
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.
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.
The sling TSI has longer range with the extended range tanks. It carries less fuel but it only burns 7 gallons per hour. Also the sling can get up to 27,000 ft pretty easily and cruises faster at higher altitude at lower fuel burn than the vans RV 10, and has much better performance. It has better performance above 8,000 ft. The RV-10 is limited to 200 knots true airspeed, VNE, while the sling TSI is indicated airspeed too. Faster at high altitude. But mostly the true airspeed is faster at 20,000 ft and also has more endurance, more range, and less fuel burn per hour at a higher speed
It's only faster at lower altitudes, and even then the 7gph fast cruise is great. But at altitude the RV10 is faster ground speed and performance because of turbo
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.
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.
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.
@@nhflyguy For sure. I ended up choosing the 10 for a few reasons. Vans is a proven company The 10 is a proven platform with some history. Engine, the IO540 is bigger but works with less stress , higher TBO than the 915 that runs in high RPM and is also a proven engine. 160K vs 140K adds up if you have long missions. My missions are typically more than 600NM. Regarding price, I saw a video from Mojo a few days ago and he is talked about 340K all in with builder assist. If you go to Syngery Air they will build a RV10 and it would propably come to the same number. I hope this helps and whichever you choose, choose the right one for you and your mission.
@@TheShays out of your whole list- vAnS iS a PrOvEn CoMpAnY is the only point you can claim and even that is such a toddlers reason to base an opinion on. #irrelevant
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.
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).
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.
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 RU-vid commentaries alone. :)
My wife and two children helped me build our RV-10 SB in two years or 2000 hours. I didn’t fall for every BS modification, stuck to the plans 99% of the build, drive used cars with liability, debt-free b4 PP/First Vans order, prepare our own meals at home and skipped the $10-25K “mandatory, according to most” vacations for a few years and didn’t need a SnF or Oshkosh award-winner. That’s how we did it. Do as you wish. Flying for 11 years now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Like others I’ve been looking at both aircraft for a while but am leaning heavily towards the RV-10 of late. I fly in the SW U.S. and during the hotter months of the year the density altitude can get to ~9,000 ft. That can rob a naturally aspirated engine of a pretty healthy percentage of its horsepower. The Cessna T-41 I fly has a 210 bhp engine that maybe produces 180 on a summer day. Those Rotax engines are fantastic, but not on a high density altitude day at a higher airfield elevation, and that will seriously hamper your performance. If you plan on venturing to higher elevations that should a consideration IMHO.
@@bennettmckay1244 absolutely it does, but it's still only 141 bhp. And even with the turbocharging, it will still suffer some performance degradation in high, hot environs. I would consider that plane/powerplant combo in a heartbeat if I never intended to fly where I do.
Above 8,000 ft density altitude the sling TSI actually performs better, not only does it cruise faster but also climbs faster. The rotox engines produce the full 141 horsepower all the way up to 16,000 ft. So above 12,000 ft it's already outperforming and the airframe, being a little bit smaller and lighter outperforms at around 8.
@@dukenewton2368 above 8,000 ft density altitude, the sling TSI outperforms the RV 10 because the sling TSI performance is maintained all the way until 16,000 ft. The RV 10 naturally aspirated engine degrades and performance
I'm in pretty much the same boat, student pilot getting close to licensure, looking to build a plane. I just put in my deposit to get in line for a Sling Highwing. The fuel economy is a factor, as is the ability today to run on Mogas. (We ditched tetraethyl lead in cars years ago because of the environmental impact, and it's coming to GA as well.) Another safety-related factor is that the full FADEC engine control reduces pilot workload vs. the IO540, and the turbocharger makes for a safer airplane at density altitude, a factor operating out of KTRK, one of my intended regular destinations. We'll see how I feel in 3 years, TAF's estimate of when I might actually get to the front of the line for a kit.
I didn't realize that sling was quoting 3 years out for the high wing! Honestly I'm not surprised though, although I'm really excited to see what the final version will be by then! 🤞
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.
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.
I've been looking seriously at both myself. Both Vans and Sling now have High Wings also. The 10 vs the TSi, for my cost research, the Sling is about 50k more. So even at your fuel savings of 2400 per year, which equates to 20 years to break even. I'm not trying to dissuade you in either direction. I'm just saying, look closer at the true costs. Airplane wise, you won't go wrong either way. Good luck and best to you! Enjoy!
I don't know how you come away with the impression that the Sling TSi is more than the RV-10, let alone $50k more. I chose the Sling TSi over the RV-10 for two primary reasons: time and money. The RV-10 takes longer to build. Since I was doing build-assist, those extra labor hours translate into more money. I called multiple RV build centers across the country, and all quoted at least $75k higher to build a comparably-equipped RV-10 than I paid for my Sling TSi with build-assist. Sure, you could build it yourself, but the RV-10 will take you longer, and most likely still cost you more. Most RV-10 builders end up spending a lot more in third-party options, because the kit itself is bare bones. The Sling TSi interior kit, for example, comes with everything you need. Things like center pedestal throttle quadrant, sidewall panels, cabin lights, etc. are all standard on the TSi, but cost extra in the RV-10. With the RV, most people buy interior components from third parties, like Aerosport Products or SF Sport Aviation, at additional expense. If you're opting for a parachute, the chute for the RV-10 is far more expensive and requires extensive labor on the exterior fuselage, because it's a retrofit, as opposed to built into the canopy like a Sling. Same with the engine. Many RV-10 builders spend a lot of money modernizing their IO-540s, adding SDS EFI, ECUs, electronic ignition, etc. Of course the Rotax 915iS already has dual electronic fuel injection, dual electronic ignition, dual ECUs, etc. So, once you factor in all that, your average RV-10 will cost more to build than your average Sling TSi. In any case, I agree that they're both awesome airplanes and you can't go wrong with either choice. The RV-10 is definitely roomier (more headroom in the back seats) and faster (at least at lower altitudes - the TSi is faster up high), but will cost more to build and operate.
@@OneAlphaMike Good Morning Mike, On some of that I don't disagree. There are many mods that can be done on and to the RV-10. That gives people more opportunity to build as they go price wise. As the NH FlyGuy stated, he doesn't have a huge budget, therefore the RV-10 is easier on the pocketbook as he goes along. It's possible the Sling Kit is similar, but on the SA Sling site, nor on the Sling site in California, nor on MojoGrips site are the prices of the Sling TSI published. How are we to compare? I based my initial response to NH FlyGuy, on one of MojoGrips videos saying his TSI was $340,000. That was my only comparison. That IS more than a well equipped RV-10 with a lot of mods. I have a detailed spreadsheet I'm working up for myself and a few friends who are also interested in these planes, comparing prices. Why do NONE of the major Sling sites publish prices publicly? We do both agree they both are incredible airplanes!
@@SteveTGove My advice to anyone who has determined that they can build an RV-10 for the same price or less than a Sling TSi is: DO IT! Actually, don’t just do it, get quotes first. 😁 I was absolutely convinced I was going to build an RV-10. Anyone can go into the Sling Builders FB group and see my post in October 2020 saying as much. Like you, I had done my research and thought that I could build an RV-10 for the same price and in the same timeframe as a Sling TSi. But then I started getting actual quotes. I wanted a Garmin panel, chute and a nice leather interior with center pedestal throttle quadrant. For the RV-10, I contacted Synergy South in Georgia, Saint Aviation in Florida and Bend Build Assist in Oregon. For the Sling TSi I contacted TAF in California, Midwest Sky Sports in Michigan and EMB Aviation in Idaho. In every single case, the cost and time to build a TSi was substantially less than that to build an RV-10. If it was cheaper, or even the same price, I would have built an RV-10! I don’t know where the $340k number is coming from, Mike Ojo says $290k in this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-y55SBXNV95c.html I spent far less than that for mine, but I know prices have risen since then (for both Vans and Sling), so that might be accurate now. Also, I have friends and colleagues who have built RV-10s and we have compared numbers. They all spent more than I did. In any case, go get quotes and build whichever one is the best deal. You’ll love either one of them, I’m sure!
Hi Mike, I did finally get a price sheet for the Sling Kits from AF in Torrance. And in MojoMikes latest Vid, he compares the prices side by side both quoted in the 250-275k range, which sound about right. I've updated my spreadsheet to compare with. BTW - Your flight into the Mountains of NC, that is where my parents lived until their passing. Dad retired from Pan Am. Looking over the compares, it does seem the Sling is a little less to build time wise, which does make a difference in decisions too.
I have similar desires to you for airplane ownership. And both the RV10 and Sling TSI are airplanes that I'd like to build someday. I'm currently working on my instrument rating and I own a Cherokee 140. It took instrument training for me to realize how much that airplane being slow is an asset, not a liability. Instrument training is different than private training. It's got a well earned reputation for putting people into a task saturated state. And I can attest to that happening to me - a lot. On top of that, there is no training for "owner in command". There are a ton of things that happen with airplane ownership for which there's just no training. The offshoot of both of these is that you should consider starting off your airplane ownership journey with something incredibly simple and slow. Simple because you need to learn airplane ownership on something simple first, and slow to ease the burden on instrument training. Savvy Aviation has a great video that goes into more detail on this titled "What Plane Should I Buy?". Recommend. Apart from that, I've subbed to see where you end up. Good luck on your private and becoming an airplane owner!
Hey Thanks for your insight! Those are some really interesting points about ownership that I had not considered before. I'll definitely be checking out that video from Savvy Aviation! Thanks again!
@@nhflyguy BTW, I'm also leaning towards a Sling TSI or the Sling high wing when I get to the point of building. Mainly because of the Rotax engine. See again Savvy Aviation's video "Outside the Box". Recommend subbing to Savvy Aviation's YT channel. It's really got fantastic content that helps with understanding the ownership responsibilities towards aircraft maintenance.
Keep in mind that the sling TSI has a max speed in indicated while the RV 10 has a max speed true airspeed. The sling TSI with the turbo has more performance at 20,000 ft than the RV 10 and can climb all the way to 28,000 ft at gross at 500 ft a minute. It also has a faster cruise speed at high altitude. This means that if you are doing a lot of cross country, high altitude flights, The sling TSI might make more sense because it performs even better at high altitude and you don't run into barber pole factors that limit you
Nice video with good information. Both great planes! I think the Sling TSI savings is not going to be 300 gals difference per 100 hours (or 270 gals). You need to factor in the speed difference as well. So let’s say you travel 17000 nm in the RV10, it would take you 100 hrs and that would cost you 1000 gals in fuel. For the Sling TSI, it would take you approximately 115 hrs to travel the same distance (148x115=17020), and that would costs you (115x7.3) = 839.5 gals. So the RV10 will cost about 160 extra gals in fuel, but the Sling TSI will cost you 15 more hrs for that distance. Best of luck with your decision!
Sling TSI is faster above 11,000 feet and can reach 26,000 feet easily while the RV-10 can not. The sling TSI outperforms the RV10 at 12,000 feet and will cross country faster, longer range, less fuel burn.
Don't forget insurance costs...I believe the Sling has higher insurance costs do to the smaller numbers in the market and the availability of parts. I suspect that will offset your fuel differences.
Don’t use GPH as your basis if the other aircraft is faster as it’s not an apples to apples comparison. The faster aircraft can throttle back to the slower airspeed and most likely have similar results and the speed is there if you need it, don’t dismiss the extra speed and useful load either!
Thinking MPG, using your numbers 148/7.3=20 nautical mpg (sling) vs 170/10=17mpg (rv10). So about a 15% difference in mpg vs the 27% difference in gph. I have a deposit down on a Sling HW and expect to get a kit no sooner than 2024. Fuel economy and a FADEC engine are the main draws, but the RV10 is probably a better IFR plane.
@@OneAlphaMike My source is my own experience, experience of my friends who fly with rotax, and my mechanic :) High RPM engine can't be reliable as low RPM engine is..
