Vans RV-10 Vs. Sling 4 Airplane. Which Is A Better 4 Seater?

[@CraigMaiman]

I’m building a Sling 4 and I’m at about 1000 hours, with the end in sight. I seriously considered building the RV-10, but the build time was the deciding factor for me. Twice the time was just way too much. The Van’s are great planes, but a good percentage of builders give up on them because of the amount of work. Btw, are you sure about the kit cost, because those big engines are much more expensive than the Rotax. Also, the Sling 4 is way better looking than the 10, which is dowdy looking. 😎

[@ashsmitty2244]

Craig Maiman "Dowdy" looking? I've never heard that. What's that?

[@CraigMaiman]

Unfashionable. To me it's very ordinary looking and not at all striking, like the Slings. Just my humble opinion. ;-)

[@billindurham]

RV10 ‘dowdy’? Well I’ve built and fly a ‘10and consider it a great looking plane. It’s always nice to be confused with a Cirrus, which admittedly is even a better looking plane. But with that said, the Sling is a more ‘stylish’ design. Stylish as in not dowdy. I’ve never seen one in person but it appears to have a tapered wing which can make a tremendous difference. It’s apparent that the ‘10 was designed by a gifted engineer while the Sling appears to have some designer influence. I’d say they are both great looking aircraft.

[@CraigMaiman]

The 10 certainly appeals to my engineering side and the Sling appeals to the artist in me.

[@ashsmitty2244]

Craig Maiman You know. I'd have to agree. The RV-10 is great performing and can out perform the cirrus with the same power. But you are right. It's not very sexy. It has more headroom than I have experienced. And I am 6"2'.

[@samtaylor1669]

Fuel burn is sill relative to distance, a 350 mile trip at 10 gph x 2 hours in the rv10 vs 6 gph x 3 hours in the sling 4 is only a 2 gallon savings. And another hour on the engine time to maintenance.

[@wirlybird997]

This clip was so well done simple and clear to understand , good job as always.

[@yepme6484]

Which one's more quieter in the cabin

[@stephenm3874]

Love your videos dude, thanks so much for your love of flying and dedication to giving great value to the beginning private pilots out there.

[@toddb930]

Thanks for putting together this comparison. I agree that these two planes look very nice. I think the time to build and the cost per hour would be deciding factors for me.

[@DIYJunkie369]

Something about the useful load, to get similar range the RV-10 has to carry more fuel. For a full tank they both have a similar range, but the remaining useful load on the -10 will be about 80 pounds less. When I priced them out for me to build I came up with $143K for the -10, but only $108K for the Sling (similar Avionics and Interior finish).

[@matheuspimental]

For me, after this detailed comparison, I would go with the Sling 4!

[@tonygomes4910]

MOJO, MY RESPECTS... YOU ARE THE BEST AVIATION COMENTATOR..... HIGH QUALITY ......

[@mikefromuniontown3809]

Thanks Mike..From this Mike to you I appreciate all your videos and this one . When I was a young man these options were not available in the mid 80's but Now in MY mid 50's I am thinking about FINISHING a dream and these kinds of videos inspire me. I think would it not be great to build an RV and fly it to OSH and here "RV over FISK rock your wings" oh well the reality starts with a dream. Thanks again and GOD BLESS!

[@Matt-xu3lb]

Mike, You did not address the new Sling 4tsi with the Rotax 915. It is a bit faster (145 kts) carries more weight, and only uses 6 gallons per hour of mogas.

[@mojogrip]

I actually touched on it but had to edit it out from the video because of time. It's included in the description though :)

[@kevinlytle6215]

The TSi is 155 ktas and 8 GPH. Minor correction to your numbers and doesn't change the fact the TSi is really a nice option. The extra HP and climb at 1,000 fpm is a better option out west where getting over terrain is more of an issue. Also high and hot airports out here make it a better choice in my opinion. Cost is a major bump at over 20K more at $136,000 versus about $115K LSi Quick Build is another $22K. Still cheaper than an RV10 but range only 800nm in LSi. 100 less than the 4 but roughly the same as the RV10.

[@jimydoolittle3129]

Sling VS RV10 .... 🤣 no way, this is hilarious 🤣

[@richarddemchuk5067]

Good job Mike on the comparison. Here is another thing to take a look at. You have to look at fuel prices. mogas vs 100LL, that is big when you are burning 14 -15 Gallons an hour with an IO 540 vs 7-8 gallons an hour with Mogas. I don't know about everybody else but I'll take an extra hour in the air enjoying the view and saving a ton of money versus getting there sooner and being broke.

[@peteranninos2516]

HI Mike. As always I enjoy your videos. A couple things you left out in operating costs as WHY the Sling is so much less is that it runs on automotive premium, not avgas. Also, the rebuild cost for the larger RV 10 engine is astronomical. I've looked extensively into both and the upcoming redesign of the Sling 4. The RV 10 trades lots of that useful load into gas and the sling with full tanks for 800nm of flying still can take 4 real adults and some baggage. All that said, DANG, that RV is fast! Oh, I talked to the Airplane factory and the new wing and engine on the OLD fuselage was making 142 knots! They hope to have the all new sling 4 at Oshkosh this year. I go there and bug them constantly! The other option is, I just say, fooey and get a nice Turbo Arrow! Happy Aviating and keep up the good work! Peter

[@LancairLC30]

The Sling is never going to be able to hold 4 180lb adults, full fuel, and still climb. It's just not possible on 115hp. Also, the RV is not fast. While it is much faster than the sling, it is not that fast.

[@mbahchibuikeo2135]

Peter Anninos Sling products here in South Africa runs on either Mogas or Avgas depending on which you chose to use in your aircraft though most pilots use mogas.

[@dennisnbrown]

@@LancairLC30 200 mph isn’t fast?

[@amejaremy]

I was just looking into both of these aircraft, great job!

[@stevemullin1195]

Mike, I know the sling 2 also allows you to burn mogas....so the sling 4 may also which also affects the cost of operation...mogas is cheaper then 100LL.

[@drewt3210]

Mike, thank you for these videos! Your information and direct comparisons are so helpful!!!

[@anonimous2451]

Yea I luv em

[@django1364]

Great stuffs, Loved the Sling coloured scheme, if I had one I would definitely change around the red and white to match my country national colours, more red less white and little black between them.

[@Vajravir]

Loved the awesome descriptions and the comparison aspects.

[@arnoldtavernier1746]

HI. I'd like to know the type of aircraft used at 6:38 please?

[@OlivTechandStuff]

For the costs you forgot to mention that the Sling 4 runs on Mogas (car gas) which is also cheaper than Avgas so the costs will be even more exacerbated. Cruise speeds and climb performance will obviously be better since the RV10 engine is over 2x more powerful, your costs will increase by over 2x in fuel but you're not going 2x as fast. The Rotax 914 engine is limited to 115hp for 5 minutes the maximum continuous horsepower is actually 100hp so its a bit misleading to say the engine has 115hp without mentioning the max continuous power. Although an advantage of the Rotax 914 over the IO540 is that it has a turbo while the IO540 doesn't. Keep up the great videos!

[@audioentertainment]

Reading a number of the comments on here - it seems to be that the largest argument is mogas vs avgas - Here is what is missing in my opinion. Both of these aircraft are experimental aircraft meaning that the builder is the manufacturer, and whatever modifications they want to do is a valid and legal thing to do if the FAA (in USA) will give the plane an airworthiness certificate. There have been De-rated IO-540 Lycoming that are 230 Horse in spray planes that use Mogas since the 70's. There are benefits to Avgas over mogas too. It is more stable at altitude as far as vapor creation, and most aircraft are designed with avgas in mind for the fuel systems. It also is stable in you fuel tank for longer periods of time. Personally, I would not run mogas in any plane I fly if the fuel contains ethanol. You might see other unforseen expenses with replacing fuel lines, and filters, gaskets, seals, carbs/injectors that are not accounted for in the mogas cost savings. This is my 2 cents - do with it what you will.

[@rootkitxx]

Test your gas for ethanol before you buy gallons of it. There are commercal drops available that will tell you if you have ethanol present. DO NOT put any gas with ETHANOL in your airplane.

[@tioz01]

sweet dreams are made of these, but I can't even afford my car

[@originalmindset5278]

I'll take the Sling TSI. Nice Review!

[@markstephensonht3691]

What if you pulled back the power level of the RV10 to match the cruise speed of the Sling, what would the RV gph be then?

[@django1364]

questions can an experiment plane be fitted with auto pilot, auto throttle and aircon, also what if I want the yoke to be a wheel instead of the stick and pilot 1 position be fitted on the rights can these things be done?, just ask I am a noob never been in a small plane but admire them.

[@Pareshdas89]

Hello Mike, can you make a video comparison for sling 4 vs cirrus sr 20??

[@AlexanderOslanbg]

I'm not sure how it is in US, but in my country a liter of AVGAS costs around 2,5 euro per litter, wheres MOGAS is around 1,25 euro per liter. Exactly half. As I understand RV-10 consumes only AVGAS, but SLing4 it is possible to use MOGAS as well. In addition to that Sling4 is a turbo airplane, so at altitude, it should deliver constant power, where RV's power will deteriorate... . So I guess speed wise at altitude the difference between them will be not as significant. And perhaps even comparable with the new 915 coming up to SlingTsi. Adding all of these together, it seems that Sling is almost capable of similar speeds at altitude, but the cost of running it is significantly lower. Am I missing out on something?

[@rafiqsaid4297]

well the turbocharged engine will keep till a certain altitude the same power as at sea level, while the not turbocharged engine will loose power with altitude... i doubt the power of the non charged 260 hp engine will drop lower the that of the rotax at sealevel

[@jamesharkness1058]

Great comparison! Thanks for reviewing these two airplanes!

[@jrenteria3784]

Oh mang, keep doing comparisons! I love em!

[@watkinsharp8756]

Very well done video

[@geraldfontain4358]

I LOVE WHAT YOU DOING EVEN I CAN'T OWEN ONE BUT LOVE TO WHATCH YOUR CHANNEL.

[@thisismagacountry1318]

These control advantages of the Sling should be even better in the new High Wing. Can't wait.

[@1shARyn3]

Operating Costs --- ROTAX is specifically meant to run on 93 MoGas. MX is vastly increased if AvGas is used (per the Maintenance Manual)

[@captaincoconutts]

Gwen Walcott it runs on 91 octane with up to 10% ethanol per the manual and usage of 100LL just means twice the oil changes which is roughly $50 if you do it yourself. To say vastly increased would be an exaggeration. Still by far cheaper to use a rotax with mogas than run a lycosaurus.

[@1shARyn3]

Also requires annual teardown of the gear box, and slip clutch and parts replacement due to lead fouling. Also lowers TBO. Also, Rotax specifically advises AGAINST use of 100LL ("use only as last choice and then supplement with Decalin or TCP to precipitate as much lead as possible")

[@stephenjones1445]

Lycosaurus- gave me a good laugh! Haven't heard that one before!

[@aeromagnumtv1581]

I think it should be mentioned, that various engines can be. used in the RV-10. So, if you do not need all of that speed and would much rather have useful 4-place utility power....you do have that option and can reduce stated fuel burn. Thanks for sharing.

[@aeromagnumtv1581]

p.s. I feel it should also be mentioned that you can add an E.C.U. to an RV-10, therefore making it equally as easy to fly as a Sling-4.

[@johnnyathanasiadis7884]

so if you are flying the rv right cant you slow down to get more distance to match the sling range

[@AClark-gs5gl]

MJ, which of these 2 do you find entry and exit to be the easiest? Thanks!

[@mehmetvural8095]

have a nice day. max speed with this plane is 200 mph. I want to make the range 1400 miles. How many hp should the engine be? please help me. thanks.

[@billywest7065]

are there limits on experimentals like altitude or VFR & IFR? BTW, Mike, you're vids are the best. My fave aviation channel....

[@cherfieldm]

Thanks nice video. What about the stall performance of these two aircraft?

[@mojogrip]

Both aircraft stalls at 55kt

[@AClark-gs5gl]

I like the design of the cabin doors/roof lines on the RV10 more, power-plant options (like that 200-h.p. turbo prop you recently made a video of), larger cabin and optional side-stick controls. Can one not put a full fadec power-plant in a RV10? Overall, both are nice.

[@brentloftis3746]

Really well thought out. Good analysis. Thanks

[@LordDice1]

I loved the Vans when you did that episode. The Sling looks super nice as well. Either way, I don't see myself spending years building an airplane. Great episode though.

[@axandio]

Hint: One can buy them already built, tried and true in the used market and never have to turn a wrench or use a rivet gun.

[@Matt-xu3lb]

You can purchase the sling ready to fly.

[@LordDice1]

Good to know. I'll keep my eye out, but right now I'm thinking an old Cessna 150 or 172. Maybe a Piper Cherokee. Something affordable I can fly every weekend and not be buried in backend costs. Still, hopefully one of these beautiful new planes will be in my not to distant future plans. ☺

[@wckoek]

Hello, I am looking for a 2 seater aircraft where range for cross country is paramount, being able to run on mogas or diesel is also a plus. I wondered if you can do a comparison review of the sling 2, jmb vl3 and the lesser known team tango xr?

[@betoslide1573]

wckoek Virus SW

[@wckoek]

@@betoslide1573 is it the new one with interchangeable glider wing tip? I wondered how many miles can be expected in range?

[@roblawrie8880]

Compare a sling 2 and an RV7 :)

[@duojet1959]

Great video Mike!

[@marioskalogeropoulos7054]

SLOWER PLANE IS STILL ON THE AIR WHEN YOU REFUEL BUT IT'S WAAAY BACK!

[@anonimous2451]

Ya ever let a car get ahead of you that is going slower than you are? Yea its takes 10-20 mins to catch it again..............and the landing and take off plus BR time and ya gotta eat when u land....so all in all its a moot point really, unless you are racing them...but, who would do that?

[@LancairLC30]

Have you looked into the new Lancair MAKO for these videos

[@johndeloach7225]

Super video. Answered a lot of my questions. Thanks!

[@matheuspimental]

Awesome comparison, and I really enjoy when you talk about the price to maintain the airplane, in terms of Fuel burning, great!

[@ashsmitty2244]

U can fly the RV-10 at the same power settings as the sling and reduce the burn.

[@mojogrip]

But in reality no one will fly the RV-10 that slow.

[@ashsmitty2244]

MojoGrip Lol. True.

[@ryanyoder7573]

I flew my Mooney slow and it slipped gas.

[@ValentinoDagher]

Just found your channel, I love it!

[@baronpilot2bb]

A faster plane doesn't always burn more fuel. Many factors contribute to the efficiency of any plane including weight, wing design, cooling drag, etc. My Glasair III weighed the same as the Sling 4 and cruised 240 MPH on 12.5 GPH at 13k ft. That is 20 MPG. If you buy a 4-seat plane such as the RV-10 I would assume that you want to go some distance. a 1000 mile trip in the RV10 is a 6 hour day with a fuel stop. In the Sling it is likely a 8-9 hour trip with 2 fuel stops. There is really no comparison in these planes for serious x-country travel. I like the idea of a simple modern plane like the Sling, but there is no way I could stomach poking along at 130 MPH.

[@aaronsmith2911]

the operating costs are going to be greatly varied. If your just a builder, engine overhauls need to be factored in. As an A&P, I can overhaul the con and lyc myself greatly reducing the overhaul costs on the rv10 but rotax wont let me touch theirs without going through their classes. So operating costs on the rv10 would be less for an A&P. Anyone that goes through the rotax school can lower their cost that way. their are just to many variables.

[@michaelksiezopolski]

Nice comparison

[@RR-qk9zu]

The ability to use Mogas is not that big of a deal in my opinion. The issue is that ethanol in the blend is almost always forbidden with these engines. So you are purchasing no ethanol premium. Where I live NEP costs almost exactly the same as 100LL costs at the airport. When regular unleaded is 3 bucks a gallon, NEP is about 4.25 to 4.50. 100LL is about 450 self fueled. And you have to get it there somehow so if you are using it a lot you are probably looking at a supplemental gas tank in the back of your truck or something. And you'll probably have to use 100LL at non-home airports anyway. Even if 100LL goes away entirely, it will be replaced at airports by high octane unleaded. It's not like the fuel suppliers will ground almost the entire GA industry by eliminating fuel options for them. Am I missing something?

[@LCKCU]

Ethanol is fine for Rotax engines. Sling uses ethanol approved lines.

[@friedrichwerth8958]

Hi R R, Thanks for your comment. Just as a correction, the Rotax engine is approved for up to 10% Ethanol, which is common in Europe. Therefore, US regular unleaded is also fine for it. Don't us it for the IO540, please! The nice but old design would be destroyed. I think, it's more common in Europe to have this small engines (1.3l) due to the ridiculous fuel prices there. The design of the Rotax 912-915 is much more "modern" especially the new 915 with the combination of 1.3l and turbo charged could be a alternative to the designs of the 50th. We will see if the US market changes to such concepts, too. Greetings!

[@thisis2share]

If you take the situation of fuel costs out of USA, you are completely wrong. In Europe for example, actual 100LL costs about 3 USD per liter that makes a bit over 11 USD per gallon. The Mogas fuel or the E98 (unleaded car gas with a 3+% higher ROZ) costs about 2 USD per liter , so in comparision to 100LL you make 33% of economy. If you add this to the lower consumption, then you are great: We try to compare bananas with bananas: O-360 is really similar to Rotax 915iS in take-off performance , the Turbo-Version (200hp) is comparabel to the 915iS in altitude cruise (the 915 has still take-off power at 12000ft). With that bether fuel burn efficiency, you will get at the very end 40% costs for 915iS in front of 100% for the IO360 just for the fuel. Then you have a much lighter airplane: The engine with all accecoirs and the doubled ECU, the doubled fuel pumps with doubled injection system, the doubled electronic ignition systems with the autonomous energy source (same idea like two magnetos), the doubled generators and the turbo plus oilcooler, watercooler plus air intercooler weights for the Rotax 915 weights under 100kg, where the IO360 makes 185 to 190 kg (see Installation Manual Lycoming- they do not include some parts included in 915). One safe for the same plane with the same endurance (say 4.5h plus 0.5 reserved) about 147 kg overall (engine+accessoirs economy + fuel economy)-> that gives you better climb performance and shorter T/O run as payback or more load. Last b.n.l. you safe place because of the 40% smaller fuel tanks and the smaller engine shape. At very least the rotax give a big freedom in designing coolent vents, because the coolers can be placed wather you like, not fishlike opening a few inch from propellerblades away. With rotax one can see a lot of nose design the go smoothless from spinner to cawling without any aerodynamic destroyers, opening, steps. Well, I am flying regulary on a 4-seater with the Rotax 914 (Turbo) and know his efficiency and performance. My comparisions with IO-320 driven Cessna and O-360 driven Archer : the Rotax has at FL100 even bether CC speed!!

[@Billliamm]

$50 vs $200 per hour to operate. Clearly you know nothing about aircraft operating costs. 5 gallons of fuel does not make a 4x difference

[@billsmith5166]

Why is it that when annual costs are calculated fuel per hour is used instead of knots per gallon?

[@erikhaw7313]

Nice, i was hoping you would post this!!

[@abdullahabulkhair3940]

How is a diamond da’s with twin Diesel engines ? Is a Diesel engines good or not ?

[@Thorgal101]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the Velocity aircraft SE2 kit?

[@2Phast4Rocket]

The Sling is way underpowered for long cross country trip with four people, and gear. The Sling starts out as a SLA after all. This is a reason most production 4 seat piston airplanes start out at least 180HP. Higher performance doesn't start until you have +200HP. Plus the RV10 is so much aerodynamically cleaner than most production airplanes, maybe except for the Cirrus.

[@stevemullin1195]

2Phast4Rocket Have you heard of any RV10s flying round the world....a sling 2 did, twice. Advantage of the Rotax engine is that it can burn mogas, and some areas of the world don't have 100LL, but have plenty of automobile gas....may have to use Jerry cans to fill up but doable.

[@2Phast4Rocket]

Steve Mullin: A Cessna 152 can fly around the world too. It's Lycoming engine is certified to use mogas. BTW, most Lycoming from IO360 and less are certified to use Mogas now. So what is your point? One plane is better because it can use mogas? Sure Sling sponsored the flight and it means if you get the money, anyone can fly around the world, the slow Sling way. Is this what you want to say? People had been flying around the world on Vans designs but it doesn't mean Vans design is better because of this feat.

[@stevemullin1195]

Just that mogas is more available then 100LL around the world and cheaper....that's all.

[@LancairLC30]

But that doesn't change what airplane can fly around the world. Matt Guthmiller flew a Bonanza around the world all on 100LL. A Cessna 210 just finished an around the world flight on 100LL

[@stevemullin1195]

LancairLC30 yes, but in India they couldn't find 100LL so had to fuel up in Pakistan. You can always find mogas and Jet A fuel worldwide. Rotax engines are very fuel efficient compared to continental engines running on 100LL. Thus you have a lower operating cost with the rotax engines.

[@AlexanderOslanbg]

Good day, Thank You for Your videos! Do You know by any chance what will be the difficulties with operating an experimental aircraft in Europe either with N-reg, or eu registrations? Perhaps You could suggest what would be the best eu registration for a plane such as RV10, the ​main mission being cross Europe flying. Thanks in advance.

[@stephen5147]

Very informative. Thanks.

[@andymillin9262]

When are you going to look at the Velocity XL or Velocity V-Twin?

[@marketfluxadvertising]

Sorry man I am a newbie in this aviation so does this kits contain avionics??

[@mojogrip]

No avionics usually are sold separately

[@tinoesterhuizen4433]

Absolutely Bang on comparison. Great video. So you can basically do 4 hours of flying in the Sling for every 1 hour in the RV.... What I don't know yet is whether there is any information on a Sling 4 using the 915IS and how that changes its capabilities if at all. And that Sling cowling I must say is just so "Uhh, In your face" mean lookin. $115k/ R1.8M is just too much for the Sling, sub $100k I would say should be a good price point in comparison and have them selling much better. Again, great video. Now just waiting for the twin Rotax Sling 6RG to come out. Just imagine 1 of those cowlings hanging over the wing on each side....

[@MatthewSTyler]

The factory had the Sling 4 TSi (Rotax 915) prototype at 154 KTAS at 6,000' in fast cruise setting (5,500 RPM, 7.6 gph). The Sling 4 TSi is different from the Sling 4 Turbo and closes the gap a little bit with the RV-10.

[@alexkoch8716]

Good thing about rotax it it can run of unleaded as well as avgas

[@luntbanzi1967]

Thank you for this

[@waynehardy66]

Interesting vid, was wondering about the available weight was with a full fuel load? It seems to me that this would potentially even out the weight comparison that you did in the "Mission" section therefore making them fairly equal

[@AlexLee-ls2je]

Very useful information. Thanx, Mike.

[@brianhedrick4986]

I'm doing my lessons out of Torrance and see the sling all day!

[@yepme6484]

Also which one has the lower dash not a tall person so shorter - would work for me

[@connerrodriquez8092]

Hey can you do some video that have the best 4 seat plane and speed around 130-150mph and good range and loaded weights and under $150000 I am sure that all of community in this KZbin want to know.

[@kenngross5306]

Very good video.

[@skydive1424]

Looking into going back to flying, but only with an owned aircraft. I can guarantee that the Sling will be underpowered when heavy. Also the reliability of Rotax would be an issue for me personally. It’s a more complicated machine than a Lyco and it has to work hard. I would love the 260 horse of the RV which probably can get you out of anywhere without worries. A used Piper Dakota give you the same performance at the same purchase price level with probably higher level of comfort. I agree with you, the ergonomics really appeal as well as the Sling’s avionics in the video. Still undecided...

[@mojogrip]

You should look into the newer Sling 4 TSi. More power and performance.

[@skydive1424]

Good point! Just saw it. Just realise that especially for European customers, these Rotaxes can run on auto gas which is half the price of avgas where I live. That is a good cut on operating costs as well, as opposed to the IO540 which only runs on Avgas

[@HerrRussoTragik]

Well Mike, considering that I'm really poor, I'm between building a Minimax 1600R or buying a fifth hand Microleve MX, or maybe, with a lots of effort, buying a second hand Orion F1 Eagle =P

[@cyrusn6299]

I think you've got the prices wrong for the apples-apples comparison on the RV. The $115k price for the sling quoted comes with a full VFR cross country panel. To add that to an RV, you'll be looking at something at least $5,000, and to be 100% comparable (moving map,engine monitors, etc), about $25k extra. TAF includes $65k in engine/avionics/prop in their quote, and Van's only includes $60k, but the engine is $20k more than the Rotax. I think the Sling should win the cost battle once you exclude avionics.

[@c.j.6891]

Thx Mike! Always helpful.

[@coolhari2000]

Can you do a comparison of 'Experimental' Vs 'Certified' air crafts in terms of privileges & restrictions.

[@1compaqedr8]

@9600GTMAN Flying within US, an experimental like an RV makes more sense especially when considering installing modern equipment or just simple things like powerful LED lights instead of 'certified' lights. Unless you can buy one, building one is a serious commitment however. Time is money...

[@brent1041]

The Sling 4 doesn't have fuel injection like you said. The 914 is carbureted, however the new fuel injected 915 will probably be the go to engine for the sling going forward.

[@CrabLouis]

I'm waiting to hear that the 915i is being implemented. Turbo injected and more speed would make a big difference.

[@mojogrip]

Yes it will Craig. I was tempted to use the estimate numbers from the Test Airplane factory sent me. But I didn't want to put any numbers out there until they confirm them with an actual flying prototype. Expect to get an update late in July/August.

[@CrabLouis]

Thanks Mike. Looking forward to it.

[@andrewmorris3479]

Craig Louis They have been flying the Sling 4 TSi with the 915 iS as it is called apparently.

[@lucasmota3992]

Just flew Sling 4tsi with 915is in Johannesburg/SA last week and here are the numbers: MAX CRUISE: 145 KTAS@9,2gph 7500ft ECO CRUISE: 135KTAS@7,4gph 7500ft CLIMB RATE: 1600fpm (Take off from Tedderfield/SA 5300ftMSL with 2 on board and full fuel.) I loved Sling 4 with the 914 on it, but the 915 just made the Sling 4 a beast! It is a REAL 4-seater airplane, and, let`s say..... FAST for the fuel burned. You can e-mail me on [e-mail] and I will send you pictures and videos.

[@sarah-nm6dt]

Thank you Mike! You are awesome! Hello from Oregon !😊👍

[@bobohara3974]

+MojoGrip I would suggest not including the fuel cost in the "cost of ownership". Although its part of the ownership costs it masks a very important cost, "maintenance". Since the majority of those who have owned an airplane have likely not owned one with a Rotax because of the shear volume of Contis and Lycomings out there, I'm sure many including myself are curious if a Rotax is any less expensive to own. On the subject of fuel consumption, I personally compare mpg not gph. In the absence of speed you have no idea how efficient the airplane is. So in this scenario the Sling is burning approximately 23 mpg and the RV-10 lets say 15 mpg. Now total fuel burned / total time used on let's say a 500 mile trip is 22 gallons / 3.6 hours for the Sling and 33 gallons / 2.5 hours for the RV-10. Now back to the maintenance, what is the cost of the maintenance on the extra 1.1 hours the Sling spent in the air. See where I'm going with this? Yes the RV-10 cost an extra $50 or so in fuel but that is not the complete picture nor does it include what an hour of your time is worth. Yes the Sling by far more fuel efficient but is it any less expensive to operate? My guess is it's very close unless the Rotax hourly maintenance cost is very low. .

[@DIYJunkie369]

I had never considered that before, thanks for pointing this out.

[@mojogrip]

Good points Bob. Reason why I didn't focus on maintenance is because, that will vary drastically being that these are both experimental airplanes. Maintenance will vary from owner to owner. That said, I can almost guarantee that your cost of maintenance is less on the Rotax engine (At least that's what I've been told). And to your point of volume, Rotax actually is used in most small modern aircrafts, particularly LSA. So there's enough share volume out there to get a good idea of reliability and cost of maintenance.

[@janbergendahl]

I agree that you also have to think about the speed difference and in the US i am sure the difference of cost is not so bad in the end. BUT, in Europe we spend almost 5 usd for one LITER of 100LL (almost 20 usd/Gal). That is 4 times the cost of 100LL in the states just on GAL against GAL. Mogas is availeble for around 1,80 USD per Liter (5.40 Usd/Gal). If you then add the fuelburn difference it will be a huge advantage towards the the Sling 4. To go one step further would be calculating USD/NM but it will differ widely where in the world you live obviously. MPG is more of an interrest if the two fuel you compare is in the same pricerange. I am actually concider the Sling 4 with the Edge Performance rotax 912 (156hp). They are now producing the sling 4 with the Rotax 915is (141 hp all the way to 15000 feet). Tests are saying speeds over 150 knots in cruise with ease. It is going to be really nice to see the full data and the actual airplane at Oshkosh in July. They will be there with the new engine installed.. BR from Finland..

[@bobohara3974]

Janne Bergendahl Good point, I forgot about the mogas issue. That does make a difference.

[@reyesben]

Bob OHara How available is mowed gas at most US airports? I’m talking about your local GA airport?

[@DirtNerds]

what were your final results?

[@jimp.7286]

Both planes are very impressive, but they do seem to fit different mission profiles. At first, the comparison seemed somehow unfair as the engines are so wildly different and the resultant speeds. Van's often cruise near the 160-200 mph mark. But the sling 4 isn't bad at all if the numbers are true. Different mission profile however. About the sling, I looked for a video of it carrying four adults but couldn't find one. Looks a bit tight in the back? As for looks, they both look impressive. In the vid, the sling has a fancier paint job than did the van's perhaps? And the van's interior was lackluster in comparison. All things that could be addressed at build time. The van's I've seen at the local fbo were gorgeous. And I've seen quite a few lately. The 10 really does look similar to a cirrus though as you say, a spec smaller. Videos like these are cruel. I have neither and wish I had anything, lol. Cheers.

[@gottafly30]

I like both of these AC. But they are VASTLY different. Sling is a small 4 seat plane, built to squeeze 4 people into a small cabin and fly efficiently. If you want to carry baggage, its 3 or 2 adults, with bags piled around the back seater. I liken this to a 2+2 coupe automobile. it is 8 inches narrower than an RV10, which is a true 4 place plus baggage cross country machine. It burns more gas, but it cruises 50% faster, so the gas burn difference on a 200 and 500 mi typical mission is not that different. (10gals or less). I liken this to a small 4 dr sedan. both of the planes can fly around 1000 miles at endurance cruise settings, which is longer than your passengers will likely want to sit in them in either case.

[@timg60]

I don't know comparing these airplanes is a fair comparison depending on your mission. If you want to go cross country, RV-10. Short hops, Sling. The speed makes a huge difference if you're trying to take a trip near the limits of the aircraft. Lets be honest, who can hold it for as long as it'd take a sling to go it's range?

[@mojogrip]

The Sling 4 is expected to be fitted with a new Rotax 915 as an option later this year. Cruise speeds in the new engine is expected to hit up to 150 kts while still burning same or close to the same amount of fuel. Traveling 170 miles per hour while burning less fuel makes a compelling argument.

[@LancairLC30]

The problem with these numbers is that they are true airspeed at altitude. You will never see these numbers in real life.

[@wcampbell1502]

if you are male, take along an empty gatorade bottle, they make for an excellent piss jug.

[@vladimirzhirov3716]

5:41 For RV-10: not cabin width, but climb rate is 1450. I watched several of your videos. Very informative. I appreciate it.

[@tzincp]

the term ECU is used in the automotive industry, and the device it refers to is very different to what is used in aviation. The device in the sling 4 that controls the engine is called a FADEC (full authority digital engine control) I feel the need to clear this up, a large portion of this channel's viewers are not pilots themselves and would not cringe at this the way I did.

[@mojogrip]

Yes FADEC is used in Aviation but the Rotax 914 in the Sling or any of the Rotax engine doesn't have a Full authority digital engine control. It does have an ECU that manages the fuel to air mixture as already stated in the video.

[@LancairLC30]

Also the RV-10 can be outfitted with FADEC

[@TechDriven365]

Great video

[@AlexandarHullRichter]

Do you have to use the stock engine when you're building a kit playing, or can you pick out different engine that you like better?

[@mojogrip]

Generally speaking you have multiple engine choices when building an experimental airplane. That said, your engine choices are limited. In the case of these 2 aircraft, You engine choices for the Sling is Rotax and for Vans is Lycoming. Other experimentals in the market have much wider range of engines to choose from. Some can even be fitted with a converted car engine like in the Zenith

[@johnnicol5009]

Great vid.

[@mtyx01]

Mike you should do a series on FADEC airplanes, 1 Cheapest FADEC, 2 Experimental FADEC, 3 Certified Single Piston FADEC, 4 LSA FADEC... etc... I also Suggest a series on Ballistic Parachute Equipped Airplanes as suggested before... Salud!

[@mtyx01]

Now that we are here you can do a series on FIKI equipped and also ALL GLASS, and then 3 Axis Autopilot.... Etc....

[@mtyx01]

Also a series of Longest Range Certified, LSA and Experimental.

[@mtyx01]

BTW I am still ok that you have not touched the bush planes and that is ok...

[@mtyx01]

That is all bush planes except DRACO... I want more DRACO!!!

[@majorchungus]

I would go with the RV-10 if I could afford it. But I really like Cozys and Velocity's

[@nestarober6028]

Hi Mike please I want to learn how to bluid my own jet how can you help me

[@markhaskins7890]

Sling 4 ballistic parachute

[@haroldlocay3946]

Confusing about the fuel burn. If a plane burns twice the fuel per hour but at twice the speed then it’s the same fuel to get there. No extra refueling.

[@Dan-hc3yh]

I’d be interested to see how many miles per gallon they each get at cruise speeds, for a true fuel burn comparison.

[@mojogrip]

Sling 4 = 6 gph @ cruise Rv-10 = 14 gph @ cruise

[@rootkitxx]

Mpg bro, true mile speed / gallon

[@michaelratliff7775]

Very good comparison video, now I just need the life to afford such a toy!

[@stephenjones1445]

Hello Mike, great video as always. I have been looking at both the sling four and the RV 10 For a while now and still have not made a decision particularly because of the engines. I know the sling company is in the process of upgrading to the Rotax 915 Engine so I am waiting for all of those updates. The engine costs are actually closer than people may think between purchasing the 915 IS And the Lycoming 540 or similar, Looking at different websites there's only around $7000 difference in cost but a massive difference in horsepower and fuel consumption. I agree with the statement below that the RV 10 has more useful load but that it is sacrificed to have to carry more fuel. Thanks for pointing out the difference in build time as I honestly didn't think there would be much of a difference because both aircraft are so similar in size and construction. I am curious if anyone can provide information on why the RV 10 is almost double the build hours? As far as I can tell both companies use the exact same building techniques with aluminum matched hole Construction. Maybe the Sling company includes more prebuilt components that the RV company does not? Keep the videos coming! Steve.

[@MatthewSTyler]

While both kits are factory produced with matched holes, the RV-10 holes are not final sized. So after you cleco the parts together, you need to final drill each hole to size, disassemble, and debur the holes. The RV-10 rivets are also bucked and require a rivet gun and bucking bar and traditional riveting methods. Most of the RV-10 rivets are also flush which require dimpling or countersinking both surfaces being riveted together. Consequently, the Sling 4 kits rivet holes are final sized, require less, if any, deburring, are not flush and require no dimpling or countersinking, use pop (or pull) rivets, and use far fewer rivets than the RV-10. The new Sling 4 TSi with the Rotax 915 will use flush rivets on the first 1/3 leading edge of every airfoil. I am not sure if they will require the builder to dimple or user bucked rivets.

[@CraigMaiman]

I'm a Sling 4 builder and chose it over the RV-10 mostly for the build time difference (and cost). Most of the build time difference is due to the rivets, but also the 10 uses 2024 aluminum which requires more anti-corrosion prep vs. the 4's 6061, which you can get away with far less because it is more corrosion resistant. I'm at 1000 hours and the end is in sight. BTW, my blog is here in case you're interested: craigsling4.blogspot.com

[@stephenjones1445]

Thanks Craig, i'll check it out! Steve.

[@stephenjones1445]

Thanks Matthew , I'm anxiously awaiting the information on the 915IS version. I didn't know the Van's kits required so much more pre-work on each hole before assembly. Steve.

[@telocity]

remember the RV-10 uses older engine that requires LL gas or Low Lead gas that is actually 100x higher in lead than automobile gas. Not good for you or environment.

[@rnordquest]

If you compare based on cost per mile you'll have a better result. It's ok to burn more fuel if you get something for it.