Here are more comparisons that didn’t make it to the video - Vans has a bigger community of builder as compared to the Sling which is a fairly new aircraft - Sling Rotax 915 engine is far more technologically advanced and has a full FADEC which allows for ease of flying - Resale value for either aircraft is about the same - Rotax 915 engine in the Sling may require more maintenance due to electronic parts and turbo system - Sling can take premium car gas instead of 100LL. This can mean huge savings on fuel. Paying $3.20 per gallon for car gas as compared to $6 per gallon for 100LL
@@ansonmoxness5403 Sometimes you can add 91 octane. But constantly exploiting is not good. Tetraethyl works as a lubricant. In many countries, the biggest problems with 100LL. Africa and Asia. In fact, the sling has the same speed of 150 knots.But the fuel burns half as much. Near the sea, Van will be faster climb. If you fly away to the mountains, if you jump over a thunderstorm front-sling is excellent.
@@baronpilot2bb You are probably right about tetraethyl. At an altitude of 9000-16000 feet, it is nice to jump over the cumulus clouds and shaking. The owner of the 182T was very pleased. What if your airfield is 6,000-6,500 feet, hot in the summertime (82-95F), no leaded gasoline, or more expensive than $ 2-2.5 for one liter)? The value of these new aircraft is great. My glider-buddy flies near the peaks of 7100-17000. He can landing in the valley, but will go back only on the trailer)). Compare with the tradition of the P28 Arrow2-loses in all respects, especially in the cost of operation. If you don't need a licensed bird sling, a good choice.
Sergei, I agree with you that the Rotax is a good choice. My point was that you are not going to fly over thunderstorms. Clouds, yes, thunderstorms, no. :) Also, many experimentals will fly up high. I routinely flew my Glasair iii at 18k ft with no turbo and could maintain a 500 FPM climb at that altitude. I do agree that the ability to burn auto fuel is a good thing. My biggest concern with the Sling Tsi is the fact that it cruises within 10 knots of VNE. That is not safe in my opinion.
Mike's videos are a lot like Hollywood reenactments... Not exactly documentaries. You have to take everything with a grain of salt. Some facts are embellished or generally overlooked. Some detail is just blatantly wrong, but he communicates it in a way that anyone can understand and the editing is really solid so it makes for an enjoyable video. With any research, you need to be getting information from multiple sources and double checking things. I look at Mike as doing a service to the aviation community at a minimum because he can engage people that could often be glossed over by "aviation experts" and I'm confident there are people that took a leap on an aviation journey because of inspiration from Mike that may have never started... So for that I give you a thumbs up!
We're here 2 years later and this man has a Sling dealership and a fully built personal aircraft. I guess the TSI made a good impression on him. Great stuff!
You said the Sling can cruise up to 200 mph, but the Vne is 178 for that airplane. Sling says it will cruise at 166mph at 9500 AMSL. The RV 10 does 194mph at 75% power with the 235hp Lycoming. The Sling has a lot of great features and it still cruises at a nice clip, but it doesn't make sense to me to say that the two are comparable when it comes to speed.
But it will take twice as long to build a rv-10, after you wait a year plus for the kit. Instead of flying you are building. My question to you is how fast are you going when you are still building? by the way I like the RV-10 over the Sling TSI, but we are trying to fly not build. Just my two cents.
It's because sling has their VNE set as the indicated airspeed while fans has it as true airspeed so as you climb higher you don't get to take advantage of the thinner error to go faster because of flutter. This means that the sling TSI can exceed the true airspeed indicated VNE by quite a bit because it has a turbocharged engine and so it can climb up really high where the air is thin and still have full power while the RV-10 is not turbocharged so it can't climb all the way up there and still maintain a high speed.
Because it's turbanormalized and because VNE is indicated on sling but true airspeed on RV 10, you can actually climb higher and go faster with the sling TSI on long distance, but on a short distance routes where you don't have much time to climb up the RV10 is a little faster
I think you made an excellent choice with the SlingTsi based upon all the parameters you mentioned in your video. I assume you will be making videos on RUclips in your new plane. I can't think of anyone more deserving of owning their own airplane than you. As a subscriber, I want to wish you all the luck in the world and many years of enjoyment flying your own plane! You did your homework. Let's go flying!
I love both of these aircraft and appreciated your comparisons. Having said that, I am leaning toward the view you may have a slight skew favoring the Sling, as that is the plane you ended up purchasing. I believe you couldn’t make a wrong decision with either! And, congratulations Mike, as I know how you have tirelessly worked toward achieving this milestone! True respect!!! My question: Another favorable aspect of the RV-10, is the fact it maintains almost ninety-eight percent of it’s retail value, regardless of the time owned. How does the Sling compare in this category?
jazzfli I sat in the Sling last year at Oshkosh, couldn’t believe how good it felt on my 6’5” 240 wide body frame. I had just enough head room to close the door. Rough air and any slack in lap belt would be a head bump, but I felt good. The top of the wind screen was a bit low for me also, but I have adapted to many cars that were worse.
I am 6'2" 270lbs and am looking at Sling and RV-10. Every inch in cabin width counts for me. I going to Oshkosh this year and will make my final decision.
The Sling 4 was way behind the RV-10 on performance, but the TSI makes them very similar in performance with a much lower operating cost and 1/2 the time to build. You can go with either one and be very happy but the TSI is going to make a huge impact in this market. You can get larger wing tanks as an option for the TSI and you extend your range over 1,200+ miles which allows you to do round trips without refueling. Since it runs best on 91 octane you can just fill up when you get home! Thats a huge cost saving!
hi, you seem to know a lot about this, what are your top 3 or 4 recommendations for planes? I want something with high performance and good range. Price is no object. thanks
Ahhhh, the debate continues! I'm scheduled to fly BOTH. Then, I'll decide which is best for my mission. However, it's great to have these two good choices.
Well, I think the debate is...If you build, which one will you finish ???..Tons of "RV Pilots" order and never finish thier planes..Just way too many parts and extra steps.....Its a guy on You Tube that just got his Sling Tsi and he cruising thru it like a Tomahawk missile heading to a ISIS target. I did a search on "Barnstormers" just yesterday...The amount of efforts that some guys put into and dint finish thier RV's...which was at least 4...1-2 Slings couldve been built and flying in that same time frame... One guy had his justabout complete, had another kid, Now, he needs a 6 passenger plane...Not gonna happen unless he gets a small jet or a King Air...Dont think his pockets are that fat.... I'd get the Sling , build it and be flying..If your mission changes, you can always "upgrade"....And like most peeps say..Most pilots fly solo anyways..Soooo.....As a note on Barnstormers..., Its at least 4 dude looking to get out form under their Rv's...
Mike, I think your comparative videos are good. I think you might consider getting into more detail, though. For example, nose gear...castering or steerable? Braking systems? TBO’s, fuel selections, all effect operational costs. You might even get into flight characteristics...how does each handle. Your current video’s are a “tease” and the result is good. If you want to put more meat on the bone, I suspect you’ll end up with an audience that is broader and deeply into aviation. You’re filling a good niche...keep growing and keep up the good work.
does that mean you will have the same performance using Mogas? typically at a half cost. this should be awesome especially in areas where fuel jet is not as ubicuitous as Mogas. thanks guys
Auto gas is not all peaches and cream. It goes bad very quickly compared to avgas, particularly if you are talking E10. In as little as 4 months, you can have real issues with stale gas. And let it go 6 months and you will probably be cleaning your fuel system. As long as you fly often, which you should anyway, this isn’t an issue, but the reality is that airplanes occasionally sit for a few months due to winter or just life getting in the way, and you need to be aware of the pitfalls of aging auto gas. Avgas will sit a couple of years with generally no issue.
@@LTVoyager If you think you're going to let your plane sit, and why would you if it were cheap and fun to fly, you add Stabil to Mogas, which doesn't have ethanol in it. If you buy Mogas at an airport, it will be non-ethanol. Can't sugar coat 100LL cost versus Mogas. And despite what AOPA says, 100LL will eventually disappear.
Sponsorship?? REALLY ?????? This guy a scammer and bullshitter and he good at it.... He's gotta many people to pay for the plane he building. I wouldn't piss on his hanger if it was on fire!! 🤬
HI Mike. Your videos are getting better and better. I'd suggest either a Gopro 7 or a DJI OSMO pocket for walking shots. Both super portable and great stabilization. I've been watching Sling for a couple of years now, live pretty close and have been impressed with how they get better all the time. I might just get a Comanche 250 or older Bonanza for about 100k less but I still really want a sling. I know that they expect the 915 engine TBO to go up like the other Rotax engines but right now, that 1200 Hr. TBO gives me pause. Keep up the good work!
Great video as always- I think an RV 10 with turbo normalized 360/390 would be the bird of choice. I prefer not having the gear reduction of the rotax.
Is that even a thing? I'm sure it's possible but I haven't seen a build of a 10 with a turbo 390? I'm sure someone has done it... I'm currently building a 14, figuring out a turbo on that would be phenomenal, I think I would lose aerobatic capabilities though??? Idk.. I'm more of a vanilla builder that follows the plans and hopes to get this thing airworthy in the next 18 months...
Very interesting comparison, but I have a few questions/comments: 1. You use knots and MPH to describe performance stating that the Sling TSI will do 200 MPH on 10 GPH. That is about 172 knots. The RV10 will do 165-170 knots or so on 12 GPH lean of peak which is roughly 195 MPH. I don't know of anyone claiming more than 155 knots in cruise on a Sling TSI (YAS not Ground Speed) which is 178 MPH on 8 GPH. If you throttle the RV10 back to that speed you will see similar fuel burns and have larger fuel capacity which extends your range to over 1000 miles. Have you actually seen a true airspeed of 200 MPH and 10 GPH in the TSI? 2. I don't think the Rotax is any cheaper to maintain or own than the 540, especially if flown at the same speeds. A good 540 will blow well past the recommended TBO time and literally has parts available anywhere with anyone able to work on them. I like the technology of the Rotax and prop, but it will not be cheaper to buy or overhaul. With the electronic ignition that is available for the 540 it is a very reliable and smooth running engine. No gearbox to worry about and ability to use full power 100% of the time if you want. To get the higher cruise speeds of the Sling to come close to the RV10 you have to get up into the flight levels where most pilots flying this type of aircraft don't want to go due to oxygen requirements and time to climb. Of course, a nice tailwind will convince you to climb, but usually higher altitudes also mean higher headwinds if the wind is going against you and if you need the altitude to make good TAS it doesn't benefit you to have the Rotax and a headwind. If you are flying out of very high DA airports (8k ft and higher) the Sling would likely have the advantage, but I don't see much advantage below that altitude. 3. Cabin room is everything when it comes to comfort because the materials used can vary greatly. There was a beautiful RV10 just sold on Barnstormers for $250k with A/C, triple G3X touch, and a beautiful interior. You could likely do the same with a sling, but probably can't add A/C very easily. I like the look of the Sling better inside from a stock interior perspective. 4. One advantage I do see with the Sling you did not mention was the ballistic parachute. It can be added to the RV10, but is the ugliest installation I have ever seen. My next plane will have a chute because of my wife's fear of me dying and her not being able to fly the plane. I have owned two Glasair IIIs that cruised 250 MPH on 12 GPH, but there was no way to put a chute in them and the plane scared my wife to death. I bought a Cirrus and hated the expense and reliability of it. The RV10 would be my choice if the chute didn't look like a Frankenstein operation. The Sling has a nice chute install, but , again, I don't see you getting 200 MPH out of the Sling unless it will make that speed at 20k ft and I'm not going there very often in a plane that climbs 1k ft per minute and has wing loading of 15 lb. With that light of wing loading you will be picking smooth days to fly.
I read a flight manual for a RV-10 owner group and it stated that tester went to 230 knots TAS (200 IAS) accidentally, noting no change in flight characteristics. He was misinterpreting the meaning of red with the barber pole on the glass. It wouldn't surprise me that RV-10 owners take it up to and over 200 without much worry.
This is just a nit picking thing. When you were referring to "high density", please use the full term "density altitude" since high density altitude is actually LOW density air. By leaving off the "altitude" part of the term, it took me a while to realize what you were talking about. I thought you might be talking about high density traffic areas at first. But great video and I would love to see your finished Sling. Love your videos. Good luck.
From what I have read, turbo charged engines require more maintenance and most don’t make it to TBO before needing new cylinders. They also require more exhaust repairs. I would think the normally aspirated Lycoming would be cheaper to maintain. Correct me if I’m wrong.
The total true cost of the sling is roughly half per hour as the RV 10. Considering that their payload is neck in neck and performance is similar at high altitudes, I think the lower operational cost breaks the tie.
@@christianjforbes O_o that's a big statement... I've flown in Sling-2 and can't say anything bad about them. Imagine the TSi is RV-10 is popular, sure, and new doesn't always mean better. But... there's a limit to how much I love 50+ year old piston engine technology. It's quite sad how conservative GA is. And no, I'm not someone who chases every new gadget that comes out. But hey... engines which run on 100LL have no good reason to exist in 2020. Or - they should at least be cheaper! But C-172 aren't really cheaper to purchase or maintain than much newer DA-40 or this TSi... so I can't really come up with a good reason to favor old tech here...
@@suzukirider9030 the RV is Bigger, Faster, Roomier Cabin, Cheaper, Well known and supported Powerplant, Field repairable... I could go on, but I think you get the idea. The economics just are not there for the Sling. Did you know, when you pop out the rear seats in an RV10 there is enough room to sleep 2 in it. It’s really more like a slick suv than a sedan. There are over 10,000 Vans aircraft flying... sling will not reach that number in 100 years. What I find most interesting is the manner in which Mike flies his isn’t any more efficient than a properly leaned 0320. An 50 yr old M20 seems to deliver very similar numbers to a sling, but can be had for 40k vs the 300k that went into the mojo sling. Have we really truly improved? Or has only the marketing and the interior fit and finish improved?
@@christianjforbes Sure, the RV-10 gets all perks associated with an aircraft that's been around for a while. 10 thousand of them flying around, like you said... But! I would argue that it's unfair to use lack of existing aircraft to bash the Sling-TSi! That's the reason aviation tech is sooo conservative! People keep flying dinosaur-tech C-172 because they end up being the path of least resistence, and most support! Being the most widely known and available aircraft is the main reason the C-172 is still around. Being popular is a huge plus in aviation, but also the biggest foe of good innovation! "Did you know, when you pop out the rear seats in an RV10 there is enough room to sleep 2 in it." ...I'd never think about pulling seats out of aircraft to sleep in it. Pitching a tent is probably 10 times quicker? Done that countless times... Also don't need a 4-seater to carry a tent for 2 in it. Hardly a reasonable argument. Mike's a renter, like myself, so he's not paying for the gas, and at $150/hour wet (hobbs time), he (and myself) gives 2 shits about leaning out the engine... bad I know. But, if gas burn is an issue - the Rotax-915 is much better than an L-320. Esp. a 50 year old one. Right? As for "have we improved" - well I've flown Sling-2 for a while and think they are technologically more advaned in a good way than the Lycoming or Continental powered aircraft. Bashing them because they are new and not yet popular is unfair. And as for what will be around in 100 year... Hard to say, GA probably 80%+ electric, and probably almost zero of the aircraft which exist today but in, say, 30 years - I bet there will be more Rotax-powered ones, than Lycoming powered ones. And I bet in 30 years 100LL will be near impossible to find.
@@suzukirider9030 More rotax than Lycoming in the future? I wouldn't bet on that. The Rotax is not used in many aircraft, and their reliability is not exactly amazing. When the 915 came out there were a bunch of TSO's that grounded the fleet. It can happen with a lycoming too, but with so few 915's in the feet, and the complexity of the engine, I would expect more teething pains with the 915. The lycoming is less expensive, more powerful, and more proven than the Rotax. The lycoming is also going to be easy to get parts for and find someone to work on it. You can even get a perfectly adequate used engine and reduce the cost of the build. The Rotax is a low-volume niche engine from Europe, and with the exchange rate, you don't get a good value for your US dollar. The Rotax doesn't just prefer auto gas, it NEEDS it. If you use 100LL, which is all that is available at many airports in the U.S., you must carry and use an expensive additive (Decolin) to scavenge the lead. If you don't you get valve problems. To give credit where it's due, the Rotax is lighter for the power, and should be more efficient and provide more range. But if you really want a high-RPM gear-reduction turbocharged engine, you could get a Viking 195hp turbo with a constant speed prop in an RV-10 for less than half the price of the Rotax 915. It's based on a Honda engine that is probably as good as a Rotax.
RV10 much higher VNE and if you want to fly as slow as a sling that’s fine you can throttle back and save some fuel. If you can afford either of the planes fuel is a small factor. What would be great is a affordable jet A1 engine to retrofit. Raising the VNE of the sling would also be good
I like the aesthetics of the Sling, but I have serious reservations about a Rotax, especially a brand new powerplant like the 915 iS. There's something to be said for the known track record of the Lycoming.
Sure, but the new Rotax is more technically advanced compared to a Lycoming fine. Rotax also is no stranger in GA. thousands of pilots fly behind a Rotax engine everyday.
I also have serious reservations about people putting a full 4-people into a 145hp aircraft. It seems astonishing to me that the Sling TSi can do the same thing as an RV-10 can do, but will just over half the horsepower (especially continuous power). I've been flying behind Lycoming engines since 1981, and have seen a number of Rotax engine failures over the years. However my understanding is that they've improved their technology, so it's conceivable that the Rotax engines are comparable to the Lycoming and/or Continental engines are these days. But the power differential seems like a tough nut to crack.
Normally, the bigger engine has more maintenance costs than the smaller one. But when you slap a turbo to the smaller engine (in addition to the gearbox, the water-cooling etc) things are a bit less clear. In practice, fuel costs kinda trump this anyway, so it's academic. Note, however, that the Lycoming IO-540 in the RV-10 has a 2,000 TBO, whereas the Rotax 915 in the Sling is currently at 1,200 TBO, although in time, this is expected to go up.
The other point I was thinking about is whether it is harder to find a Rotax A&P than a Lycoming A&P and do they charge more. I also would wonder whether Rotax parts are more expensive or not.
Problem for both of them, both use a similar "Hershey Bar" wing with a relatively low wing loading and quite rigid minimal flexing wing. All of this makes for a very rough ride in turbulence.
The lancair mako has a sleeker Wing design, not sure if it's necessarily better in turbulence... It's also more than double the price tag with full configuration compared to either of these two with performance not proportionately improved.
Hi Mike, one aspect that you did not mention all that much is Safety. For example, the RV-10 has a crashworthy seat from Oregon Aero. I do not know weather the Sling has a similarily safe seat that has done sled testing to the standards for certidied aircraft. To me that would be an important factor due to the fact that I have seen people suffer or die from seats that were not crashworthy. Also the access to the Sling is quite a bit more difficult due to the higher entrance edge above the wing, which in turn makes access and especially egress in the case of an emergency a lot more complicated in the Sling. In case of a flip over, chances of gettig out of the RV may be bigger too. These are just some more thoughts that you may consier in an evaluation that may be of interest in a true and honest comparison. Other than that You did a great job and I enjoyed your video. Thank you!
The small doors in the Sling would worry me . Egressing that plane in an emergency/fire might be difficult or slower than other planes. Same goes for rescue personnel trying to pull you out of the cockpit. The larger doors on the RV-10 that practically extend down to the wing provide more room to egress (you can practically roll out of the RV-10) or have emergency crews pull you out.
Sling will not cruise 200-that is well above its VNE. The only way you're getting that is a stiff tailwind. RV-10 will cruise at 200 level flight with no problem. Also, the sling's climb rate is about 400 fpm less than the RV-10. An internal combustion engine looses about 3% of its power for every thousand feet of elevation. This being said, at 10,000 ft of elevation (slightly higher than Leadville), the RV-10 will be operating right around 180 HP- or 40 more than the Sling. The break even point (when the 260hp would be reduced to 140hp) would finally happen after 15,000 feet.
I honestly think you'll pay more for maintenance on the Sling due to the turbocharger. Turbos add a lot of stress on the engine compared to NA. Additionally, Lycoming has a more widespread support network compared to Rotax, for the most part. Perhaps an argument could be made that the RV-10 is "safer" because a Lycoming won't fail with the electrical system, but most people building an RV-10 or a Sling TSi will be putting glass in anyways so that's almost a moot point, I think.
Anybody mention the reliability of the engines in the two planes. The Rotax is a newer design but the older design engine in the RV10 , Lycoming or continental is more reliable and runs 1/2 the rpm and doesn’t gear box. A turbo require more maintenance. Sure the Lycoming or continental uses more gas but it’s air cooled, no gearbox, no radiator and coolant to worry about. If your spending 150 - 200 grand. I dought fuel cost is to much of a issue. The TBO is longer in the bigger engines is longer.
Have you checked out the cost of a new Cessna, Piper or Cirrus of similar performance envelope? One similarly equipped (basic glass-panel IFR, leather interior, etc.) will cost upwards of $400k - not to mention the cost of annuals, maintenance and fuel usage. Flying is expensive, but the Sling and RV (and other amateur-builts) bring that cost down considerably!
Great video, but I would take the efficiency of the turbo TSI, especially over 10,000 feet, over the 'bigger' Lycoming. The turbo seems to more than compensate over the horsepower. That Lycoming won't come even close to the true power, much less the fuel consumption of the TSI at 20,000 ft🤔 Do they come with oxygen?🦁✌
I would think the Rotax overhaul costs would be quite a bit less than the Lycoming, too. I'm not at all sure about reliability of the Rotax. I expect the Lycoming to be very reliable. If the Rotax is reliable, operating costs are probably significantly less. I would also expect that the Lycoming will have the edge in climb rate but it's going to burn a lot more fuel doing it. If I can count on the Rotax, I'd probably rather have it. Operating costs are a HUGE factor for a non-rich guy like me. :) (If I had serious money, I'd get a serious airplane, like an SR22.)
Jon the Pilot As an olde school VW, & Porche mechanic, I'm impressed with the similar simplicity to the design of the Rotax, and would be able to greatly reduced my personal costs by doing the work myself🤔 But then, there's the reliability thing. If you're driving an olde school VW/Porche, you're working on them...🦁✌
The Sling won't match the takeoff, climb or cruise performance of the RV-10. We see nearly 2000 fpm on a cool day, 2 people full fuel on the RV-10, 1500 fpm at gross on a warm day. The fuel burn is much lower than you state here too. Up high at 16-20,000 feet running LOP with SDS EFI/EI we see 160-172 KTAS on 10-11.5 gph.
Mike We get which one you are getting.. Overhaul about the same for either. Gearbox replace at 1000hr on TSI not mentioned Either way you get a sweet magic carpet. Does the 915 have the self adjustable prop? peace, Capfly
I love both the Sling TSI and the RV10 they are excellent aircraft. And I agree with Mike that the Sling TSI is more beautiful than the RV10. However, I think that Rotax 915 engine is not the way to go. The engine is only rated at its maximum HP at 5800 RPM for 1 minute! The high RPMs & turbo charger/intercooler/prop reduction gear arraignment is going to be a nightmare to maintain in the Rotax. The Continental Titan x540 six cylinder engine weighs less, develops more continuous HP and torque at 2700 RPM and it’s $30,000.00 dollars cheaper to buy than the Rotax. The X540 can also be run at “lean of peak” to obtain additional fuel economy. Continental has announced that the FADEC version of the X540 will be available in March 2020 which will alleviate the need to run at lean of peak automatically offering maximum fuel economy at all altitudes and RPMs. I would love to see you redo this comparison with a Sling TSI and a RV10 with the same Continental titan x540 engine. Maybe even consider putting the x540 in your own X540 and save $30k.
I sense a little bias for the sling, but could be the reason that you are building a sling and not the rv-10 🤔. Great Analysis on both Airplanes, I like them both.
I'd be afraid of the Rotax. I watch the Flying Cowboys channels. It seems that these guys are always having engine problems with their Rotaxes...like broken con rods going thru the block, and all sorts of less major things. Does the Sling have a chute? I hope so for the owners sake!
Have never understood why fuel economy is such a deciding factor for aircraft since the cost of fuel is miniscule compared to the cost of the aircraft.
Sean Dougherty 2,000 hours TBO x 14 gallons/hour = 28,000 US gallons for the RV10. 28,000 US gallons @ £1.86/litre (in the UK) = £52,080 over the life of the engine. 2,000 hours TBO x 10 gallons/hour = 20,000 US gallons for the Sling TSi. 20,000 US gallons x £1.10/litre = £22,000. That’s a saving of £30,000 on each engine!
I'm new to flying, but from what I have seen on the specs the Vne on the TSi is 178mph. That said, why is it stated in this video that you can cruise in a TSi at 200 mph?
I would buy the Sling TSI. Looks better inside and out. I’m just a mere mortal dreaming of being a pilot one day and buying my own plane.....soon I hope. Business is good ! Thanks for the awesome videos !
I’m looking seriously at the Sling TSI and want to order just the empennage but they seem to be only interested in selling full kits right now. Could you get an update on wait times for obtaining a section at a time. Thanks.
I love both of these aeroplanes but I really don’t feel your video is neutral. You say the RV10 is faster but then you say the TSI is just as fast. Which is it?
I liked the video as well as the look of the Sling. With that being said, I wished you would have touched on the ease of construction between the two since most people will buy them as kits. I know Van's kits have match-drilled holes, good customer support, and a vast builder community to rely on. I'm not sure about Sling.
Hi David, the Sling builder community is obviously not as vast as the community that Van's have but we do have a great technical support team and a lot of builders helping where possible. Check out the group "Sling Builders" on Facebook for a good idea of the community.
The sling looks modern. I think the Rotax even with the turbo is cheaper to buy than the 540 on the RV10. I think you can buy the Rotax for less than a full overhaul of the 540
Airspeed claims without stating altitude can be confusing because airspeed indicated will be 2% less than true air speed for every 1,000 feet of altitude. this is because there are less air molecules to create pressure in the Pitot. Vne is normally stated at sea level and is what is indicated on the airspeed indicator at sea level. Every 1,000 feet you climb, your true airspeed will be 2% faster than what is shown on the airspeed indicator. Thus, a Vne of 178 kts would actually be a True airspeed of 213 kts at 10,000 ft. even though your airspeed indicated would still show 178. That's all nice but if you are flying point A to point B, the only thing that really matters in terms of how long it takes to get there is Ground Speed, and that's a whole 'nother conversation!
Hey Mike. When are you going start a Build Vlog building the Sling TSI? I've also looked around and I cant seem to find a better aircraft for the mission.
Check out channels for inspiration. >Jason Ellis RV10 >FlightChops RV14 Coming Soon > Chase:Every:Second RV10 > Andrew Kilroy RV14 Think of it like a LEGO set for adults !!
What is the difference between the two engines in terms of TBO? I think the Rotax is 1200 hrs or less. Isn't the Lycoming 2000 hrs or more? That right there is a Significant savings My TR182 has a Continental IO540. It will cruise at 174kts true at 10kMSL. And do it on 12gph.
What about checking the oil? I hear you have to rotate the prop to check the oil on a Rotax. What about engine serviceability? I expect more mechanics know how to work on the Lycoming no? How about insurance? Is one higher than the other? I noticed you can adjust the seats on the rv. Is that the same one the sling? How about engine oil change frequency?
I'd agree. Plus you can find a nice used TB 20 for half of what you will pay for these kit planes. You would probably have to do some avionics upgrades though.
Wow it really looks like the Sling TSI beats the Vans RV-10, Tecnam P2010, and Cirrus SR22 for overall value. Is Sling still making the High Wing version?
Hey Mike, I really enjoyed your video today. Love the jazz going in the background as well. So if you have 4 adults weighing about 750 pounds combined do you have any room for luggage? I will wait for your response. Vaughn
I’d say no. The 540 is an easy lump to work on and every a/p mechanic at any airfield would be totally confident in doing anything needed. The Rotax, not so much. And good luck finding any decent low to mid time 915 to buy and fit. At this time, you’re pretty much going to have to buy a factory new engine vs the hundreds of not thousands of Lycoming available for rebuild, that, as the builder, can do themselves.
LSA is not an Experimental and where are your facts to show ANY 4 place experimental doing fine? Stop wishing... Even Bristell, which is a far more mature company than sling is hesitant with bringing a 4 seater experimental to fruition because the market potential is very limited.
The two airplanes I like the most. Well, ignoring the SR22 for budgetary reasons. Great video. I'm a bit skeptical about the build times. Assuming the Quick Build kits are bought for either plane - or just the standard kits, it's seems illogical that the Sling would take so much less time to build than the RV. Is this one of those marketing claims made by a manufacturer that really isn't true in real life? Like gas mileage is always off for cars? How can a Sling take 1,200 hours and an RV 2,000 for a similar size plane with similar specs. I call shenanigans on the Sling marketing department for claiming you can build that plane in 1,200. What is their explanation of how their plane can be build in 60% of the time of the RV? There needs to be a really obvious and straightforward reason or else I just don't believe it.
maxx..I call your attention to this dude..he whipping thru this Sling like a hot knife thru budda!!!!!...ruclips.net/video/L7rdBNXES7U/видео.html....plus, The RV is a great plane, but, has tons more parts and people just give up on them coz of that...Even w/the Quik-build kit.....If you chx "Barnstormers"..Tons of unfinished RV kits for sale...People just loose the motivation....I love RV's, but..I had to let that "Love" translate to yrs of building and by then, They prolly done come up w/ 2-3 more models....Now, I got an "old" plane...Its new, but, its old.......
RV-6A COMPLETE KIT • $15,000 • CLEANING OUT THE HANGAR • Van's RV-6A kit for sale. Hard work done. All parts to complete. Contact for details. • Contact Kevin Cocozzoli, Friend of Owner - located Crestview, FL USA • Telephone: 850-612-0816 . 850-683-0474 • Posted May 3, 2019 RV-7A • $38,000 • FOR SALE • 95% Complete. Needs Interior, Engine, Avionics, and Cowling finished. • Contact Rudy Tomsich, Owner - located Chesterland, OH USA • Telephone: 440-749-0182 • Posted May 1, 2019 RV10 QUICK BUILD KIT • $50,000 • ACCEPTING OFFERS • RV-10 Quick build kit. Empanage is half completed. Fuselage and wings are quick-build and intact. • Contact RV10 Kit Owner, Owner - located Chicago, IL USA • Telephone: 415-316-2126 • Posted April 21, 2019 RV-10 KIT (UNEXPECTED TWINS!) RV-10 KIT (UNEXPECTED TWINS!) • $154,900 • AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE SALE • Unexpected Twins turned us into a family of 5 with a 4-seat airplane! 0 TT Lycoming YIO-540-D4A5 w/Hartzell 2-Blade C/S Prop A&P Installed. Advance Flight Systems AF-5600 professionally built IFR panel w/Avidyne IFD540 and dual 10.5" displays. Dynon dual-axis Autopilot. Aerosport low-profile door handles & cowl landing light. QB Wings. AeroLED wingtip/tail lights. Crow seat belts. Great condition, complete documentation, strict compliance with Vans' recommendations. Estimate 150 man-hours remaining before first flight. Pushing pause on 4-seat dream...saving up for 6-seat fantasy! • Contact Marc C. Austin, Owner - located Dunkirk, MD USA • Telephone: 509 998-5535 • Posted April 19, 2019 RV 4 PROJECT • $9,000 • FOR SALE BY BUILDER • Empenage completed.Wings 80%. Needs fuselage, finish kit, and engine. Predrilled. Van License #886. • Contact Monte B. Quist - QUISTCO, Owner - located Canton, TX USA • Telephone: 719-684-2352 • Posted April 18, 2019 VANS RV 9A WINGS/ EMP • FOR IMMEDIATE SALE • I am parting with my 9A kit I will provide pictures and as much info as possible. I am located in FT Myers ( KFMY) I prefer a pick up at the hanger.. crating is expensive, I do have a wing crate to secure those. Two empennages, both 95% complete fiberglass and some metal work left Wings I purchased 75% done, the tanks are done SAVE TIME I have over 11K invested in the kit asking $7500 have all books, plans and receipts • Contact Neal Trombley - 1964, Owner - located N Ft Myers, FL USA • Telephone: 2399950683 • Posted April 11, 2019 Soo, There you go...Alll those "Big Dreams" just got too big........For all thsee efforts, These peeps couldve had 2 Slings built and flying.....
@@ToyManFlyer1100 Thanks. I saw they built one in 4 days at an air show in South Africa. But the question is why would one plane be substantially faster to build than a similarly sized & kitted competitor? My guess is the RV engine takes a little more time to install but beyond that, I can't think of any reason the Sling would be faster than the RV to build. I was leaning toward the RV-10 over the Sling 4 but the Sling Tsi has me reconsidering.
@@bocamax The Sling TSi construction is basically all pulled rivets for the builder, which means you can do it by yourself (plus with the Milwaukee Electric rivet puller, it's also quieter than a compressor), while the RV10 is primarily solid rivets so you often need either a second person to hold the bucking bar on the other side or do contortion by yourself, so it can add up to the construction time significantly.
To complete any of these planes it will cost you north of $200k for sure, there is absolutely no way you could do it for $150k. It's still a good deal compared to the certified aircraft of same size which cost $600k+.
Having a cabin on the Middle Fork of the Salmon river our airstrip is 4860ft asl. So density altitude was something grilled into me from the time of a child. One off the first questions I asked my father a 36,000hr pilot in everything from J3 Cubs to 757's was what about turbo charged engines? Then you wouldn't have to worry about density altitude, you'd have full power into the teens.he responded true, but your wings propeller and control surfaces all will respond and perform at the density altitude your at. You may have sea level power but that doesn't mean your going to get sea level performace from the prop. He finished with the following which I will pass on. "Don't get lured into a false sense of security of having a turbo." "Over the years he remarked the most common accidents in the back country was from airplanes that had higher performance engines." He had a religious practice, "Early morning or very late evening." Over all the years I never saw him fly out of the ranch later that 10:00am during hot summer days. I share this that it may help because I witnessed five accidents from our airstrip, three of which density altitude was a major contributor, and in two accidents was the cause, one being 4 fatalities. The two were from a runway incursion, and one fatality was from catastrophic engine failure shortly after takeoff
Here are more comparisons that didn’t make it to the video
- Vans has a bigger community of builder as compared to the Sling which is a fairly new aircraft
- Sling Rotax 915 engine is far more technologically advanced and has a full FADEC which allows for ease of flying
- Resale value for either aircraft is about the same
- Rotax 915 engine in the Sling may require more maintenance due to electronic parts and turbo system
- Sling can take premium car gas instead of 100LL. This can mean huge savings on fuel. Paying $3.20 per gallon for car gas as compared to $6 per gallon for 100LL
That has to be figured into the cost of opperation for sure...
Mike, Awesome video, but a correction: a IO-540 D4A5 (the standard spec on the RV-10) has 8.5:1 compression ratio, so you can put 91 octane in it.
@@ansonmoxness5403 Sometimes you can add 91 octane. But constantly exploiting is not good. Tetraethyl works as a lubricant. In many countries, the biggest problems with 100LL. Africa and Asia. In fact, the sling has the same speed of 150 knots.But the fuel burns half as much. Near the sea, Van will be faster climb. If you fly away to the mountains, if you jump over a thunderstorm front-sling is excellent.
@@baronpilot2bb You are probably right about tetraethyl. At an altitude of 9000-16000 feet, it is nice to jump over the cumulus clouds and shaking. The owner of the 182T was very pleased. What if your airfield is 6,000-6,500 feet, hot in the summertime (82-95F), no leaded gasoline, or more expensive than $ 2-2.5 for one liter)? The value of these new aircraft is great. My glider-buddy flies near the peaks of 7100-17000. He can landing in the valley, but will go back only on the trailer)). Compare with the tradition of the P28 Arrow2-loses in all respects, especially in the cost of operation. If you don't need a licensed bird sling, a good choice.
Sergei,
I agree with you that the Rotax is a good choice. My point was that you are not going to fly over thunderstorms. Clouds, yes, thunderstorms, no. :)
Also, many experimentals will fly up high. I routinely flew my Glasair iii at 18k ft with no turbo and could maintain a 500 FPM climb at that altitude. I do agree that the ability to burn auto fuel is a good thing.
My biggest concern with the Sling Tsi is the fact that it cruises within 10 knots of VNE. That is not safe in my opinion.
Mike's videos are a lot like Hollywood reenactments... Not exactly documentaries. You have to take everything with a grain of salt. Some facts are embellished or generally overlooked. Some detail is just blatantly wrong, but he communicates it in a way that anyone can understand and the editing is really solid so it makes for an enjoyable video. With any research, you need to be getting information from multiple sources and double checking things. I look at Mike as doing a service to the aviation community at a minimum because he can engage people that could often be glossed over by "aviation experts" and I'm confident there are people that took a leap on an aviation journey because of inspiration from Mike that may have never started... So for that I give you a thumbs up!
Agreed
We're here 2 years later and this man has a Sling dealership and a fully built personal aircraft. I guess the TSI made a good impression on him. Great stuff!
You said the Sling can cruise up to 200 mph, but the Vne is 178 for that airplane. Sling says it will cruise at 166mph at 9500 AMSL. The RV 10 does 194mph at 75% power with the 235hp Lycoming. The Sling has a lot of great features and it still cruises at a nice clip, but it doesn't make sense to me to say that the two are comparable when it comes to speed.
But it will take twice as long to build a rv-10, after you wait a year plus for the kit. Instead of flying you are building. My question to you is how fast are you going when you are still building? by the way I like the RV-10 over the Sling TSI, but we are trying to fly not build. Just my two cents.
It's because sling has their VNE set as the indicated airspeed while fans has it as true airspeed so as you climb higher you don't get to take advantage of the thinner error to go faster because of flutter. This means that the sling TSI can exceed the true airspeed indicated VNE by quite a bit because it has a turbocharged engine and so it can climb up really high where the air is thin and still have full power while the RV-10 is not turbocharged so it can't climb all the way up there and still maintain a high speed.
Because it's turbanormalized and because VNE is indicated on sling but true airspeed on RV 10, you can actually climb higher and go faster with the sling TSI on long distance, but on a short distance routes where you don't have much time to climb up the RV10 is a little faster
I think you made an excellent choice with the SlingTsi based upon all the parameters you mentioned in your video. I assume you will be making videos on RUclips in your new plane. I can't think of anyone more deserving of owning their own airplane than you. As a subscriber, I want to wish you all the luck in the world and many years of enjoyment flying your own plane! You did your homework. Let's go flying!
I love both of these aircraft and appreciated your comparisons. Having said that, I am leaning toward the view you may have a slight skew favoring the Sling, as that is the plane you ended up purchasing. I believe you couldn’t make a wrong decision with either! And, congratulations Mike, as I know how you have tirelessly worked toward achieving this milestone! True respect!!! My question: Another favorable aspect of the RV-10, is the fact it maintains almost ninety-eight percent of it’s retail value, regardless of the time owned. How does the Sling compare in this category?
At 6'2" 280lbs I probably would go with the RV-10. Thanks for the commentary dude! You're doing Great!!
jazzfli I sat in the Sling last year at Oshkosh, couldn’t believe how good it felt on my 6’5” 240 wide body frame. I had just enough head room to close the door. Rough air and any slack in lap belt would be a head bump, but I felt good. The top of the wind screen was a bit low for me also, but I have adapted to many cars that were worse.
I am 6'2" 270lbs and am looking at Sling and RV-10. Every inch in cabin width counts for me. I going to Oshkosh this year and will make my final decision.
The Sling 4 was way behind the RV-10 on performance, but the TSI makes them very similar in performance with a much lower operating cost and 1/2 the time to build. You can go with either one and be very happy but the TSI is going to make a huge impact in this market.
You can get larger wing tanks as an option for the TSI and you extend your range over 1,200+ miles which allows you to do round trips without refueling. Since it runs best on 91 octane you can just fill up when you get home! Thats a huge cost saving!
hi, you seem to know a lot about this, what are your top 3 or 4 recommendations for planes? I want something with high performance and good range. Price is no object. thanks
David Cook What’s the range without extended tanks?
Tim Duncan conservatively 700 miles....obviously depends on a lot of factors.
@@gummybear41283 money no object! I have 18000000 and money is an object. If it's no object get a 737
@@terryjordan7276 hahaha I want something more sporty and smaller
Ahhhh, the debate continues! I'm scheduled to fly BOTH. Then, I'll decide which is best for my mission. However, it's great to have these two good choices.
Well, I think the debate is...If you build, which one will you finish ???..Tons of "RV Pilots" order and never finish thier planes..Just way too many parts and extra steps.....Its a guy on You Tube that just got his Sling Tsi and he cruising thru it like a Tomahawk missile heading to a ISIS target.
I did a search on "Barnstormers" just yesterday...The amount of efforts that some guys put into and dint finish thier RV's...which was at least 4...1-2 Slings couldve been built and flying in that same time frame...
One guy had his justabout complete, had another kid, Now, he needs a 6 passenger plane...Not gonna happen unless he gets a small jet or a King Air...Dont think his pockets are that fat....
I'd get the Sling , build it and be flying..If your mission changes, you can always "upgrade"....And like most peeps say..Most pilots fly solo anyways..Soooo.....As a note on Barnstormers..., Its at least 4 dude looking to get out form under their Rv's...
There are over 10,000 RVs flying.
I doubt Sling will ever reach that number in any number of years factored in.
I just fell in love with that sling. Excellent Comparison Video. Answered every question! You are a bad ass!
Mike, I think your comparative videos are good. I think you might consider getting into more detail, though. For example, nose gear...castering or steerable? Braking systems? TBO’s, fuel selections, all effect operational costs. You might even get into flight characteristics...how does each handle. Your current video’s are a “tease” and the result is good. If you want to put more meat on the bone, I suspect you’ll end up with an audience that is broader and deeply into aviation. You’re filling a good niche...keep growing and keep up the good work.
I disagree. For a decent length video of 15:00 this video covers great points of comparison. Need more info then go to each plane review.
Hi Mike,
You forgot to mention a key issue: Since the Sling is Rotax-powered it can run on MOGAS, which reduces fuel costs by 50% - a big deal !
Yes this is true!
Good point Sir!
does that mean you will have the same performance using Mogas? typically at a half cost. this should be awesome especially in areas where fuel jet is not as ubicuitous as Mogas. thanks guys
Auto gas is not all peaches and cream. It goes bad very quickly compared to avgas, particularly if you are talking E10. In as little as 4 months, you can have real issues with stale gas. And let it go 6 months and you will probably be cleaning your fuel system. As long as you fly often, which you should anyway, this isn’t an issue, but the reality is that airplanes occasionally sit for a few months due to winter or just life getting in the way, and you need to be aware of the pitfalls of aging auto gas. Avgas will sit a couple of years with generally no issue.
@@LTVoyager If you think you're going to let your plane sit, and why would you if it were cheap and fun to fly, you add Stabil to Mogas, which doesn't have ethanol in it. If you buy Mogas at an airport, it will be non-ethanol.
Can't sugar coat 100LL cost versus Mogas. And despite what AOPA says, 100LL will eventually disappear.
You should get a sling sponsorship. This made me think about a sling for the first time.. and I have watched your other videos.
Same here...
100% agree!
Sponsorship?? REALLY ??????
This guy a scammer and bullshitter and he good at it....
He's gotta many people to pay for the plane he building.
I wouldn't piss on his hanger if it was on fire!! 🤬
@@doesntmatter3068 I know! Can you believe this guy? Forcing us to watch his videos?! UNBELIEVABLE!!!! AHHHHHHHRRRRGHHHH!
@@goonhoona8186
This is where i do a huge EYE ROLL @ GOON!
HI Mike. Your videos are getting better and better. I'd suggest either a Gopro 7 or a DJI OSMO pocket for walking shots. Both super portable and great stabilization. I've been watching Sling for a couple of years now, live pretty close and have been impressed with how they get better all the time. I might just get a Comanche 250 or older Bonanza for about 100k less but I still really want a sling. I know that they expect the 915 engine TBO to go up like the other Rotax engines but right now, that 1200 Hr. TBO gives me pause.
Keep up the good work!
What about the reduction gearbox on the sling? Isn’t there a recommended inspection/overhaul interval before engine overhaul? Great video!
Great video as always- I think an RV 10 with turbo normalized 360/390 would be the bird of choice. I prefer not having the gear reduction of the rotax.
Is that even a thing? I'm sure it's possible but I haven't seen a build of a 10 with a turbo 390? I'm sure someone has done it... I'm currently building a 14, figuring out a turbo on that would be phenomenal, I think I would lose aerobatic capabilities though??? Idk.. I'm more of a vanilla builder that follows the plans and hopes to get this thing airworthy in the next 18 months...
Hey Mike, I like the way you go over these points of comparison. I also like the looks of the Sling Tsi. Thanks for putting this together!
Great video Mike the Sling is by far the best looking plane.
Pipistrel Panthera
Very interesting comparison, but I have a few questions/comments:
1. You use knots and MPH to describe performance stating that the Sling TSI will do 200 MPH on 10 GPH. That is about 172 knots. The RV10 will do 165-170 knots or so on 12 GPH lean of peak which is roughly 195 MPH. I don't know of anyone claiming more than 155 knots in cruise on a Sling TSI (YAS not Ground Speed) which is 178 MPH on 8 GPH. If you throttle the RV10 back to that speed you will see similar fuel burns and have larger fuel capacity which extends your range to over 1000 miles. Have you actually seen a true airspeed of 200 MPH and 10 GPH in the TSI?
2. I don't think the Rotax is any cheaper to maintain or own than the 540, especially if flown at the same speeds. A good 540 will blow well past the recommended TBO time and literally has parts available anywhere with anyone able to work on them. I like the technology of the Rotax and prop, but it will not be cheaper to buy or overhaul. With the electronic ignition that is available for the 540 it is a very reliable and smooth running engine. No gearbox to worry about and ability to use full power 100% of the time if you want. To get the higher cruise speeds of the Sling to come close to the RV10 you have to get up into the flight levels where most pilots flying this type of aircraft don't want to go due to oxygen requirements and time to climb. Of course, a nice tailwind will convince you to climb, but usually higher altitudes also mean higher headwinds if the wind is going against you and if you need the altitude to make good TAS it doesn't benefit you to have the Rotax and a headwind. If you are flying out of very high DA airports (8k ft and higher) the Sling would likely have the advantage, but I don't see much advantage below that altitude.
3. Cabin room is everything when it comes to comfort because the materials used can vary greatly. There was a beautiful RV10 just sold on Barnstormers for $250k with A/C, triple G3X touch, and a beautiful interior. You could likely do the same with a sling, but probably can't add A/C very easily. I like the look of the Sling better inside from a stock interior perspective.
4. One advantage I do see with the Sling you did not mention was the ballistic parachute. It can be added to the RV10, but is the ugliest installation I have ever seen. My next plane will have a chute because of my wife's fear of me dying and her not being able to fly the plane. I have owned two Glasair IIIs that cruised 250 MPH on 12 GPH, but there was no way to put a chute in them and the plane scared my wife to death. I bought a Cirrus and hated the expense and reliability of it. The RV10 would be my choice if the chute didn't look like a Frankenstein operation. The Sling has a nice chute install, but , again, I don't see you getting 200 MPH out of the Sling unless it will make that speed at 20k ft and I'm not going there very often in a plane that climbs 1k ft per minute and has wing loading of 15 lb. With that light of wing loading you will be picking smooth days to fly.
I read a flight manual for a RV-10 owner group and it stated that tester went to 230 knots TAS (200 IAS) accidentally, noting no change in flight characteristics. He was misinterpreting the meaning of red with the barber pole on the glass. It wouldn't surprise me that RV-10 owners take it up to and over 200 without much worry.
Great video Mike. Love the Sling. It's just sexier.
This is just a nit picking thing. When you were referring to "high density", please use the full term "density altitude" since high density altitude is actually LOW density air. By leaving off the "altitude" part of the term, it took me a while to realize what you were talking about. I thought you might be talking about high density traffic areas at first. But great video and I would love to see your finished Sling. Love your videos. Good luck.
From what I have read, turbo charged engines require more maintenance and most don’t make it to TBO before needing new cylinders. They also require more exhaust repairs. I would think the normally aspirated Lycoming would be cheaper to maintain. Correct me if I’m wrong.
The total true cost of the sling is roughly half per hour as the RV 10. Considering that their payload is neck in neck and performance is similar at high altitudes, I think the lower operational cost breaks the tie.
The RV10 speed and utility are far superior to rhe Sling. This seems very biased. I suspect your Sling kit has influenced your change in opinion.
There is not even a fair comparison. The RV10 is a superior choice to anyone who’s really a flyer.
@@christianjforbes O_o that's a big statement... I've flown in Sling-2 and can't say anything bad about them. Imagine the TSi is
RV-10 is popular, sure, and new doesn't always mean better. But... there's a limit to how much I love 50+ year old piston engine technology. It's quite sad how conservative GA is.
And no, I'm not someone who chases every new gadget that comes out. But hey... engines which run on 100LL have no good reason to exist in 2020.
Or - they should at least be cheaper! But C-172 aren't really cheaper to purchase or maintain than much newer DA-40 or this TSi... so I can't really come up with a good reason to favor old tech here...
@@suzukirider9030 the RV is Bigger, Faster, Roomier Cabin, Cheaper, Well known and supported Powerplant, Field repairable... I could go on, but I think you get the idea. The economics just are not there for the Sling.
Did you know, when you pop out the rear seats in an RV10 there is enough room to sleep 2 in it. It’s really more like a slick suv than a sedan.
There are over 10,000 Vans aircraft flying... sling will not reach that number in 100 years.
What I find most interesting is the manner in which Mike flies his isn’t any more efficient than a properly leaned 0320. An 50 yr old M20 seems to deliver very similar numbers to a sling, but can be had for 40k vs the 300k that went into the mojo sling.
Have we really truly improved? Or has only the marketing and the interior fit and finish improved?
@@christianjforbes Sure, the RV-10 gets all perks associated with an aircraft that's been around for a while. 10 thousand of them flying around, like you said...
But! I would argue that it's unfair to use lack of existing aircraft to bash the Sling-TSi! That's the reason aviation tech is sooo conservative! People keep flying dinosaur-tech C-172 because they end up being the path of least resistence, and most support!
Being the most widely known and available aircraft is the main reason the C-172 is still around.
Being popular is a huge plus in aviation, but also the biggest foe of good innovation!
"Did you know, when you pop out the rear seats in an RV10 there is enough room to sleep 2 in it."
...I'd never think about pulling seats out of aircraft to sleep in it. Pitching a tent is probably 10 times quicker? Done that countless times... Also don't need a 4-seater to carry a tent for 2 in it. Hardly a reasonable argument.
Mike's a renter, like myself, so he's not paying for the gas, and at $150/hour wet (hobbs time), he (and myself) gives 2 shits about leaning out the engine... bad I know.
But, if gas burn is an issue - the Rotax-915 is much better than an L-320. Esp. a 50 year old one. Right?
As for "have we improved" - well I've flown Sling-2 for a while and think they are technologically more advaned in a good way than the Lycoming or Continental powered aircraft. Bashing them because they are new and not yet popular is unfair.
And as for what will be around in 100 year... Hard to say, GA probably 80%+ electric, and probably almost zero of the aircraft which exist today
but in, say, 30 years - I bet there will be more Rotax-powered ones, than Lycoming powered ones. And I bet in 30 years 100LL will be near impossible to find.
@@suzukirider9030 More rotax than Lycoming in the future? I wouldn't bet on that. The Rotax is not used in many aircraft, and their reliability is not exactly amazing. When the 915 came out there were a bunch of TSO's that grounded the fleet. It can happen with a lycoming too, but with so few 915's in the feet, and the complexity of the engine, I would expect more teething pains with the 915. The lycoming is less expensive, more powerful, and more proven than the Rotax. The lycoming is also going to be easy to get parts for and find someone to work on it. You can even get a perfectly adequate used engine and reduce the cost of the build. The Rotax is a low-volume niche engine from Europe, and with the exchange rate, you don't get a good value for your US dollar. The Rotax doesn't just prefer auto gas, it NEEDS it. If you use 100LL, which is all that is available at many airports in the U.S., you must carry and use an expensive additive (Decolin) to scavenge the lead. If you don't you get valve problems.
To give credit where it's due, the Rotax is lighter for the power, and should be more efficient and provide more range. But if you really want a high-RPM gear-reduction turbocharged engine, you could get a Viking 195hp turbo with a constant speed prop in an RV-10 for less than half the price of the Rotax 915. It's based on a Honda engine that is probably as good as a Rotax.
RV10 much higher VNE and if you want to fly as slow as a sling that’s fine you can throttle back and save some fuel. If you can afford either of the planes fuel is a small factor. What would be great is a affordable jet A1 engine to retrofit. Raising the VNE of the sling would also be good
Well done. Information was presented clear & concise. Keep up the good work.
I like the aesthetics of the Sling, but I have serious reservations about a Rotax, especially a brand new powerplant like the 915 iS. There's something to be said for the known track record of the Lycoming.
Sure, but the new Rotax is more technically advanced compared to a Lycoming fine. Rotax also is no stranger in GA. thousands of pilots fly behind a Rotax engine everyday.
I also have serious reservations about people putting a full 4-people into a 145hp aircraft. It seems astonishing to me that the Sling TSi can do the same thing as an RV-10 can do, but will just over half the horsepower (especially continuous power).
I've been flying behind Lycoming engines since 1981, and have seen a number of Rotax engine failures over the years. However my understanding is that they've improved their technology, so it's conceivable that the Rotax engines are comparable to the Lycoming and/or Continental engines are these days. But the power differential seems like a tough nut to crack.
Mike, your videos get better and better with time, thanks.
Normally, the bigger engine has more maintenance costs than the smaller one. But when you slap a turbo to the smaller engine (in addition to the gearbox, the water-cooling etc) things are a bit less clear. In practice, fuel costs kinda trump this anyway, so it's academic. Note, however, that the Lycoming IO-540 in the RV-10 has a 2,000 TBO, whereas the Rotax 915 in the Sling is currently at 1,200 TBO, although in time, this is expected to go up.
The other point I was thinking about is whether it is harder to find a Rotax A&P than a Lycoming A&P and do they charge more. I also would wonder whether Rotax parts are more expensive or not.
Very good review. Makes a buyer want to get a sharp pencil, and hard homework.
.
Problem for both of them, both use a similar "Hershey Bar" wing with a relatively low wing loading and quite rigid minimal flexing wing. All of this makes for a very rough ride in turbulence.
What plane do you recommend for a smoother flight other than these?
The lancair mako has a sleeker Wing design, not sure if it's necessarily better in turbulence... It's also more than double the price tag with full configuration compared to either of these two with performance not proportionately improved.
It’s simple…Slow to 125 kias in my 10 and it’s nice and cushy in turbulence.
The RV-10 hands down can outperform over the Sling. I think you are being very misleading here.
Hi Mike, one aspect that you did not mention all that much is Safety. For example, the RV-10 has a crashworthy seat from Oregon Aero. I do not know weather the Sling has a similarily safe seat that has done sled testing to the standards for certidied aircraft. To me that would be an important factor due to the fact that I have seen people suffer or die from seats that were not crashworthy. Also the access to the Sling is quite a bit more difficult due to the higher entrance edge above the wing, which in turn makes access and especially egress in the case of an emergency a lot more complicated in the Sling. In case of a flip over, chances of gettig out of the RV may be bigger too. These are just some more thoughts that you may consier in an evaluation that may be of interest in a true and honest comparison. Other than that You did a great job and I enjoyed your video. Thank you!
Great video! The Sling has my vote. Thank you!
I’d like to know what a turbo normalized RV-10 could accomplish.
The airframe can handle faster speeds, thats about it.
The small doors in the Sling would worry me . Egressing that plane in an emergency/fire might be difficult or slower than other planes. Same goes for rescue personnel trying to pull you out of the cockpit.
The larger doors on the RV-10 that practically extend down to the wing provide more room to egress (you can practically roll out of the RV-10) or have emergency crews pull you out.
Nice comparison! 😊 Thank you.
Sling will not cruise 200-that is well above its VNE. The only way you're getting that is a stiff tailwind. RV-10 will cruise at 200 level flight with no problem. Also, the sling's climb rate is about 400 fpm less than the RV-10. An internal combustion engine looses about 3% of its power for every thousand feet of elevation. This being said, at 10,000 ft of elevation (slightly higher than Leadville), the RV-10 will be operating right around 180 HP- or 40 more than the Sling. The break even point (when the 260hp would be reduced to 140hp) would finally happen after 15,000 feet.
I honestly think you'll pay more for maintenance on the Sling due to the turbocharger. Turbos add a lot of stress on the engine compared to NA. Additionally, Lycoming has a more widespread support network compared to Rotax, for the most part. Perhaps an argument could be made that the RV-10 is "safer" because a Lycoming won't fail with the electrical system, but most people building an RV-10 or a Sling TSi will be putting glass in anyways so that's almost a moot point, I think.
Nice background music and intro synchronization
Thank u for your awesome video's .your explanation is clear and info accurate and so informative .Wayne sunny South Africa
You must have been reading my mind bro. Thank you!!
Anybody mention the reliability of the engines in the two planes. The Rotax is a newer design but the older design engine in the RV10 , Lycoming or continental is more reliable and runs 1/2 the rpm and doesn’t gear box. A turbo require more maintenance. Sure the Lycoming or continental uses more gas but it’s air cooled, no gearbox, no radiator and coolant to worry about. If your spending 150 - 200 grand. I dought fuel cost is to much of a issue. The TBO is longer in the bigger engines is longer.
Is there an accurate comparison to structural strengths of the TSI compared to the other planes you have reviewed?
Correction: quick build for rv-10 is approximately $15k. Isn’t that cheaper than Sling’s price in your video?
Groovy little planes....but dang! Just outrageously priced! Holy crap!
Have you checked out the cost of a new Cessna, Piper or Cirrus of similar performance envelope? One similarly equipped (basic glass-panel IFR, leather interior, etc.) will cost upwards of $400k - not to mention the cost of annuals, maintenance and fuel usage. Flying is expensive, but the Sling and RV (and other amateur-builts) bring that cost down considerably!
A loaded Cirrus SR22T is $976k....
A nice Comanche 250 is a whole bunch cheaper and has similar performance
Great video, but I would take the efficiency of the turbo TSI, especially over 10,000 feet, over the 'bigger' Lycoming. The turbo seems to more than compensate over the horsepower. That Lycoming won't come even close to the true power, much less the fuel consumption of the TSI at 20,000 ft🤔 Do they come with oxygen?🦁✌
They have flown that TSi at 23,000ft. They are planning to go higher for oshkosh.
I would think the Rotax overhaul costs would be quite a bit less than the Lycoming, too. I'm not at all sure about reliability of the Rotax. I expect the Lycoming to be very reliable. If the Rotax is reliable, operating costs are probably significantly less. I would also expect that the Lycoming will have the edge in climb rate but it's going to burn a lot more fuel doing it. If I can count on the Rotax, I'd probably rather have it. Operating costs are a HUGE factor for a non-rich guy like me. :) (If I had serious money, I'd get a serious airplane, like an SR22.)
@souljahroch you can get oxygen yes.
Jon the Pilot
As an olde school VW, & Porche mechanic, I'm impressed with the similar simplicity to the design of the Rotax, and would be able to greatly reduced my personal costs by doing the work myself🤔 But then, there's the reliability thing. If you're driving an olde school VW/Porche, you're working on them...🦁✌
The Sling won't match the takeoff, climb or cruise performance of the RV-10. We see nearly 2000 fpm on a cool day, 2 people full fuel on the RV-10, 1500 fpm at gross on a warm day. The fuel burn is much lower than you state here too. Up high at 16-20,000 feet running LOP with SDS EFI/EI we see 160-172 KTAS on 10-11.5 gph.
Mike We get which one you are getting.. Overhaul about the same for either. Gearbox replace at 1000hr on TSI not mentioned Either way you get a sweet magic carpet. Does the 915 have the self adjustable prop? peace, Capfly
I'll take the Sling TSI. Nice Review!
Always enjoy your vids. Cant afford either plane. Guess have to stick with my 1979 Cessna 182Q.
ryan inman by the way your C182 carry more weight. Is sturdy and keep up with these well especially if you fit a O520
I love both the Sling TSI and the RV10 they are excellent aircraft. And I agree with Mike that the Sling TSI is more beautiful than the RV10. However, I think that Rotax 915 engine is not the way to go. The engine is only rated at its maximum HP at 5800 RPM for 1 minute! The high RPMs & turbo charger/intercooler/prop reduction gear arraignment is going to be a nightmare to maintain in the Rotax. The Continental Titan x540 six cylinder engine weighs less, develops more continuous HP and torque at 2700 RPM and it’s $30,000.00 dollars cheaper to buy than the Rotax. The X540 can also be run at “lean of peak” to obtain additional fuel economy. Continental has announced that the FADEC version of the X540 will be available in March 2020 which will alleviate the need to run at lean of peak automatically offering maximum fuel economy at all altitudes and RPMs. I would love to see you redo this comparison with a Sling TSI and a RV10 with the same Continental titan x540 engine. Maybe even consider putting the x540 in your own X540 and save $30k.
Good points. Soon as one is available we'll make another comparison.
I sense a little bias for the sling, but could be the reason that you are building a sling and not the rv-10 🤔. Great Analysis on both Airplanes, I like them both.
hes bias hes building a sling
3:50 - Faster speeds than what? That is misleading if you are saying the TSI gets faster speeds than the RV-10 does it not?
I'd be afraid of the Rotax. I watch the Flying Cowboys channels. It seems that these guys are always having engine problems with their Rotaxes...like broken con rods going thru the block, and all sorts of less major things. Does the Sling have a chute? I hope so for the owners sake!
Fake news.. It's not real.. They make problems for you to watch
Have never understood why fuel economy is such a deciding factor for aircraft since the cost of fuel is miniscule compared to the cost of the aircraft.
Sean Dougherty
2,000 hours TBO x 14 gallons/hour = 28,000 US gallons for the RV10.
28,000 US gallons @ £1.86/litre (in the UK) = £52,080 over the life of the engine.
2,000 hours TBO x 10 gallons/hour = 20,000 US gallons for the Sling TSi.
20,000 US gallons x £1.10/litre = £22,000.
That’s a saving of £30,000 on each engine!
Sling TSI , wow!! I`ll go with this one, awesome aircraft !!
I'm new to flying, but from what I have seen on the specs the Vne on the TSi is 178mph. That said, why is it stated in this video that you can cruise in a TSi at 200 mph?
I would buy the Sling TSI. Looks better inside and out. I’m just a mere mortal dreaming of being a pilot one day and buying my own plane.....soon I hope. Business is good ! Thanks for the awesome videos !
Is the seat adjustable for both air planes, especially for short or small people?
Mike do a video on electric planes including the sun flyer4?
Great video Mike. Thanks.
I’m looking seriously at the Sling TSI and want to order just the empennage but they seem to be only interested in selling full kits right now. Could you get an update on wait times for obtaining a section at a time. Thanks.
I love both of these aeroplanes but I really don’t feel your video is neutral.
You say the RV10 is faster but then you say the TSI is just as fast. Which is it?
I liked the video as well as the look of the Sling. With that being said, I wished you would have touched on the ease of construction between the two since most people will buy them as kits. I know Van's kits have match-drilled holes, good customer support, and a vast builder community to rely on. I'm not sure about Sling.
Hi David, the Sling builder community is obviously not as vast as the community that Van's have but we do have a great technical support team and a lot of builders helping where possible. Check out the group "Sling Builders" on Facebook for a good idea of the community.
The sling looks modern. I think the Rotax even with the turbo is cheaper to buy than the 540 on the RV10. I think you can buy the Rotax for less than a full overhaul of the 540
Great seeing an all Mike video. Great comparison of two awesome aircraft. Of course I’m partial to the Sling 😃
Oh yeah…
Airspeed claims without stating altitude can be confusing because airspeed indicated will be 2% less than true air speed for every 1,000 feet of altitude. this is because there are less air molecules to create pressure in the Pitot. Vne is normally stated at sea level and is what is indicated on the airspeed indicator at sea level. Every 1,000 feet you climb, your true airspeed will be 2% faster than what is shown on the airspeed indicator. Thus, a Vne of 178 kts would actually be a True airspeed of 213 kts at 10,000 ft. even though your airspeed indicated would still show 178. That's all nice but if you are flying point A to point B, the only thing that really matters in terms of how long it takes to get there is Ground Speed, and that's a whole 'nother conversation!
Can you land both these planes on grass runways
Enjoyed your video!
Cool informative video!
Excellent video, please Cessna 172 vs Beechcraft Sierra vs Piper PA-28 (all oldies).
neogranadino
Absolutely! Add the Comanche 180 to your list!
Hey Mike. When are you going start a Build Vlog building the Sling TSI? I've also looked around and I cant seem to find a better aircraft for the mission.
I was thinking the same thing. Lets do it Mike!!
Ben.....😎😎😎
@@JoeJoe6678 ......😎😎😎
Check out channels for inspiration.
>Jason Ellis RV10
>FlightChops RV14 Coming Soon
>
Chase:Every:Second RV10
>
Andrew Kilroy RV14
Think of it like a LEGO set for adults !!
@@BenSieweke And my channel if you want to see a Sling TSi in construction in my garage.
What is the difference between the two engines in terms of TBO?
I think the Rotax is 1200 hrs or less. Isn't the Lycoming 2000 hrs or more?
That right there is a Significant savings
My TR182 has a Continental IO540. It will cruise at 174kts true at 10kMSL. And do it on 12gph.
What about checking the oil? I hear you have to rotate the prop to check the oil on a Rotax. What about engine serviceability? I expect more mechanics know how to work on the Lycoming no? How about insurance? Is one higher than the other? I noticed you can adjust the seats on the rv. Is that the same one the sling? How about engine oil change frequency?
how does the vans handle in high DA situations? does anyone have performance charts. say Colorado airport at 9000 ft and 80 degrees.
Thanks , great video
Great vidio Mike..
Liked the vidio Mike please put a rv 7 vs rv 8
I Had a 2004 Socata Trinidad TB 20 that looks a lot like the TSI
I'd agree. Plus you can find a nice used TB 20 for half of what you will pay for these kit planes. You would probably have to do some avionics upgrades though.
Excelente Bro 👍🏻
I think I'll opt for the kit, as long as it includes that tiny little tube of glue.
So if the factory built sling would also be certified then too ???
Sling - Proudly South African.
SAVE THE BOER
Proudly brother 🔥🔥😱
@@gareth69erjones Love you looong time
Wow it really looks like the Sling TSI beats the Vans RV-10, Tecnam P2010, and Cirrus SR22 for overall value. Is Sling still making the High Wing version?
Can you do a review on the Velocity Twin ..PLEASE I'm thinking of going that way but not much TRUE reviews.. (trust worthy) out there.. thanks !!!!!
Hey Mike, I really enjoyed your video today. Love the jazz going in the background as well. So if you have 4 adults weighing about 750 pounds combined do you have any room for luggage? I will wait for your response. Vaughn
750 is total of occupants and cargo/baggage.
Great Video.
Great video.
More money on maintenance on the larger engine without the turbo?
I’d say no. The 540 is an easy lump to work on and every a/p mechanic at any airfield would be totally confident in doing anything needed. The Rotax, not so much. And good luck finding any decent low to mid time 915 to buy and fit. At this time, you’re pretty much going to have to buy a factory new engine vs the hundreds of not thousands of Lycoming available for rebuild, that, as the builder, can do themselves.
Is that what you own ?
The bigger build and support network sits with the Vans. Vans is proven with a track record behind them.. What will you do when Sling goes bust?
Sling's LSA is doing great... And this more capable plane will do fine in the long haul.
LSA is not an Experimental and where are your facts to show ANY 4 place experimental doing fine? Stop wishing... Even Bristell, which is a far more mature company than sling is hesitant with bringing a 4 seater experimental to fruition because the market potential is very limited.
The two airplanes I like the most. Well, ignoring the SR22 for budgetary reasons. Great video.
I'm a bit skeptical about the build times. Assuming the Quick Build kits are bought for either plane - or just the standard kits, it's seems illogical that the Sling would take so much less time to build than the RV. Is this one of those marketing claims made by a manufacturer that really isn't true in real life? Like gas mileage is always off for cars?
How can a Sling take 1,200 hours and an RV 2,000 for a similar size plane with similar specs. I call shenanigans on the Sling marketing department for claiming you can build that plane in 1,200. What is their explanation of how their plane can be build in 60% of the time of the RV? There needs to be a really obvious and straightforward reason or else I just don't believe it.
maxx..I call your attention to this dude..he whipping thru this Sling like a hot knife thru budda!!!!!...ruclips.net/video/L7rdBNXES7U/видео.html....plus, The RV is a great plane, but, has tons more parts and people just give up on them coz of that...Even w/the Quik-build kit.....If you chx "Barnstormers"..Tons of unfinished RV kits for sale...People just loose the motivation....I love RV's, but..I had to let that "Love" translate to yrs of building and by then, They prolly done come up w/ 2-3 more models....Now, I got an "old" plane...Its new, but, its old.......
RV-6A COMPLETE KIT • $15,000 • CLEANING OUT THE HANGAR • Van's RV-6A kit for sale. Hard work done. All parts to complete. Contact for details. • Contact Kevin Cocozzoli, Friend of Owner - located Crestview, FL USA • Telephone: 850-612-0816 . 850-683-0474 • Posted May 3, 2019
RV-7A • $38,000 • FOR SALE • 95% Complete. Needs Interior, Engine, Avionics, and Cowling finished. • Contact Rudy Tomsich, Owner - located Chesterland, OH USA • Telephone: 440-749-0182 • Posted May 1, 2019
RV10 QUICK BUILD KIT • $50,000 • ACCEPTING OFFERS • RV-10 Quick build kit. Empanage is half completed. Fuselage and wings are quick-build and intact. • Contact RV10 Kit Owner, Owner - located Chicago, IL USA • Telephone: 415-316-2126 • Posted April 21, 2019
RV-10 KIT (UNEXPECTED TWINS!)
RV-10 KIT (UNEXPECTED TWINS!) • $154,900 • AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE SALE • Unexpected Twins turned us into a family of 5 with a 4-seat airplane! 0 TT Lycoming YIO-540-D4A5 w/Hartzell 2-Blade C/S Prop A&P Installed. Advance Flight Systems AF-5600 professionally built IFR panel w/Avidyne IFD540 and dual 10.5" displays. Dynon dual-axis Autopilot. Aerosport low-profile door handles & cowl landing light. QB Wings. AeroLED wingtip/tail lights. Crow seat belts. Great condition, complete documentation, strict compliance with Vans' recommendations. Estimate 150 man-hours remaining before first flight. Pushing pause on 4-seat dream...saving up for 6-seat fantasy! • Contact Marc C. Austin, Owner - located Dunkirk, MD USA • Telephone: 509 998-5535 • Posted April 19, 2019
RV 4 PROJECT • $9,000 • FOR SALE BY BUILDER • Empenage completed.Wings 80%. Needs fuselage, finish kit, and engine. Predrilled. Van License #886. • Contact Monte B. Quist - QUISTCO, Owner - located Canton, TX USA • Telephone: 719-684-2352 • Posted April 18, 2019
VANS RV 9A WINGS/ EMP • FOR IMMEDIATE SALE • I am parting with my 9A kit I will provide pictures and as much info as possible. I am located in FT Myers ( KFMY) I prefer a pick up at the hanger.. crating is expensive, I do have a wing crate to secure those. Two empennages, both 95% complete fiberglass and some metal work left Wings I purchased 75% done, the tanks are done SAVE TIME I have over 11K invested in the kit asking $7500 have all books, plans and receipts • Contact Neal Trombley - 1964, Owner - located N Ft Myers, FL USA • Telephone: 2399950683 • Posted April 11, 2019
Soo, There you go...Alll those "Big Dreams" just got too big........For all thsee efforts, These peeps couldve had 2 Slings built and flying.....
Go w/the Sling...At least you'll finish it....
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming already in Progress.....!!
@@ToyManFlyer1100 Thanks. I saw they built one in 4 days at an air show in South Africa. But the question is why would one plane be substantially faster to build than a similarly sized & kitted competitor? My guess is the RV engine takes a little more time to install but beyond that, I can't think of any reason the Sling would be faster than the RV to build.
I was leaning toward the RV-10 over the Sling 4 but the Sling Tsi has me reconsidering.
@@bocamax The Sling TSi construction is basically all pulled rivets for the builder, which means you can do it by yourself (plus with the Milwaukee Electric rivet puller, it's also quieter than a compressor), while the RV10 is primarily solid rivets so you often need either a second person to hold the bucking bar on the other side or do contortion by yourself, so it can add up to the construction time significantly.
Great vid as always. Hey can you check out some Gyro copters like the Cavalon...
How easy did you find getting in and out of the TSi vs the RV10? Thanks
To complete any of these planes it will cost you north of $200k for sure, there is absolutely no way you could do it for $150k. It's still a good deal compared to the certified aircraft of same size which cost $600k+.
So, where are the hidden costs? I'm an A&P and would do everything I could myself. If you spend 60k on the kit, how do you jump to 200k?
I would rather have an io 540 lycoming than a pos rotax
TAF = The Aeroplane Factory ( made in Johannesburg)
Having a cabin on the Middle Fork of the Salmon river our airstrip is 4860ft asl. So density altitude was something grilled into me from the time of a child. One off the first questions I asked my father a 36,000hr pilot in everything from J3 Cubs to 757's was what about turbo charged engines? Then you wouldn't have to worry about density altitude, you'd have full power into the teens.he responded true, but your wings propeller and control surfaces all will respond and perform at the density altitude your at. You may have sea level power but that doesn't mean your going to get sea level performace from the prop. He finished with the following which I will pass on.
"Don't get lured into a false sense of security of having a turbo." "Over the years he remarked the most common accidents in the back country was from airplanes that had higher performance engines." He had a religious practice, "Early morning or very late evening." Over all the years I never saw him fly out of the ranch later that 10:00am during hot summer days.
I share this that it may help because I witnessed five accidents from our airstrip, three of which density altitude was a major contributor, and in two accidents was the cause, one being 4 fatalities. The two were from a runway incursion, and one fatality was from catastrophic engine failure shortly after takeoff