For those without FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/notes/vans-aircraft-inc/what-price-a-masterpiece-by-dick-vangrunsven/237594966250883
In June, an article entitled* ?Mod Masterpiece,? appeared in Sport Aviation.* It extolled many features of the absolutely gorgeous interior that Greg Hale built into his award-winning RV-10. Unfortunately (perhaps unwittingly) the article drew our attention more to the price he paid than his admittedly wonderful workmanship and customization. No, I?m not referring to the usual costs measured in dollars and building time.* I?m referring to the price that airplane builders often pay in reduced utility and, more important, in impaired safety.*
*
The article started with a pull-quote: ?The RV-10 impressed us since you could load four passengers and bags and be well within the maximum gross weight and CG.?** Normally, that?s true. An RV-10 usually weighs about 1600 lbs empty, so with its rated 2700 lb gross it has an 1100 lb useful load.* That translates into four 170 lb people, sixty gallons of fuel, and sixty pounds of baggage. But given what article goes on to describe, this quote appears increasingly ironic.
* *
Mr. Hale?s modifications and additions had a dramatic effect on the empty weight of his RV-10.* The reported empty weight of 1848 lbs -- 248 lbs over the 1600 lbs that we?d consider ?standard.?* This translates into the equivalent of 1? passengers who must be left behind or 41 gallons of fuel, which must remain on the ground if the airplane is to remain within the design gross weight limit of 2700 lbs.* With full standard fuel tanks, his RV-10 effectively becomes a 2-seat airplane. Then, we noticed the spec sheet accompanying the article giving the fuel capacity as 120 gallons!* If this is accurate, it means that, in addition to the cabin interior modifications, Mr. Hale apparently installed additional fuel tanks in his RV-10 and doubled the standard sixty gallons.* With 120 gallons on board, his RV-10?s payload would be further reduced to a 132 lbs -- not even a single-seater anymore.
*
Here?s another, perhaps more appropriate, quote: ?You can?t have your cake and eat it too.?
*
Continued...
In June, an article entitled* ?Mod Masterpiece,? appeared in Sport Aviation.* It extolled many features of the absolutely gorgeous interior that Greg Hale built into his award-winning RV-10. Unfortunately (perhaps unwittingly) the article drew our attention more to the price he paid than his admittedly wonderful workmanship and customization. No, I?m not referring to the usual costs measured in dollars and building time.* I?m referring to the price that airplane builders often pay in reduced utility and, more important, in impaired safety.*
*
The article started with a pull-quote: ?The RV-10 impressed us since you could load four passengers and bags and be well within the maximum gross weight and CG.?** Normally, that?s true. An RV-10 usually weighs about 1600 lbs empty, so with its rated 2700 lb gross it has an 1100 lb useful load.* That translates into four 170 lb people, sixty gallons of fuel, and sixty pounds of baggage. But given what article goes on to describe, this quote appears increasingly ironic.
* *
Mr. Hale?s modifications and additions had a dramatic effect on the empty weight of his RV-10.* The reported empty weight of 1848 lbs -- 248 lbs over the 1600 lbs that we?d consider ?standard.?* This translates into the equivalent of 1? passengers who must be left behind or 41 gallons of fuel, which must remain on the ground if the airplane is to remain within the design gross weight limit of 2700 lbs.* With full standard fuel tanks, his RV-10 effectively becomes a 2-seat airplane. Then, we noticed the spec sheet accompanying the article giving the fuel capacity as 120 gallons!* If this is accurate, it means that, in addition to the cabin interior modifications, Mr. Hale apparently installed additional fuel tanks in his RV-10 and doubled the standard sixty gallons.* With 120 gallons on board, his RV-10?s payload would be further reduced to a 132 lbs -- not even a single-seater anymore.
*
Here?s another, perhaps more appropriate, quote: ?You can?t have your cake and eat it too.?
*
Continued...