X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [161.88.255.139] (account marv@lancaironline.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 5.0.9) with HTTP id 1066310 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:17:21 -0400 From: "Marvin Kaye" Subject: Re: [LML] Settle a debate? To: lml X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.0.9 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:17:21 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Posted for "John W. Cox" : Adam - good luck with the query. As a regular on the RV-10 site I have seen little definitive statistics to support the RV-10s as fast as you represent. They have to be stripped down with little or no sound attenuation to keep the 1619 empty weight. A close friend who responded by building his closer to ES standards came in at 1683 empty weight and is not seeing the speeds advertised. Fast, but not Lancair fast. It wouldn't be a fair fight comparing to a Cessna 182 and the RV-10. The two planes are not in the same class. In the next year or two several RV-10s will be finished which get closer in quality. Ed Hayden with the Lancair boys overhead air plenum and Vic Syracuse (now flying)are two that are going to be running identical Performance built IO-540D4A5s with Hollywood Horsepower at 310. Many have a fear of running LOP anything close to an IO-550. The RV has more frontal drag and much slower fairings. It has a niche and a zealous loyal following. When I suggested running more than the 260 horsepower limit, VANS published an article that flutter would ensue and the aircraft could fall out of the sky. This comparison should be fun. John Cox