The fast, efficient RV-10 against the certified Cessna 182 Skylane, weighing homebuilt performance against certified predictability.
The RV-10 is faster, longer legged and exceptionally capable from short runways, so the data case is stronger than its experimental label may suggest. The label still matters. Build quality, systems, paperwork and the competence of the shop inspecting it determine whether those advantages arrive with freedom or with a permanent troubleshooting project. The 182 gives away performance for certified consistency, a vast support network and resale that does not require explaining one builder's decisions. Choose the Van's if hands-on stewardship is part of the appeal and an RV specialist approves the aircraft. Choose the Cessna if the mission begins with dependable availability.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
| Decision factor | Van's Aircraft RV-10View aircraft profile | Cessna 182T SkylaneView aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 2020 | 2023 |
| Estimated purchase | €300k | €580k |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €28k | €43k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €442k | €797k |
| Cruise speed | 170 kt | 145 kt |
| Advertised range | 1000 nm | 915 nm |
| Seats | 4 | 4 |
| Realistic payload | 346 kg | 365 kg |
| Runway need | 360 m | 461 m |
| Landing gear | Fixed tricycle | Fixed tricycle |
| Ratings and endorsements | None beyond the certificate | None beyond the certificate |
| Data confidence | Normalized for direct comparison | Normalized for direct comparison |
| Main trade-off | Excellent speed, payload and cabin value, but build quality, documentation and resale vary aircraft by aircraft. | A strong real-world four-seat traveller, but fuel burn and nose-heavy handling demand more budget and discipline than a 172. |
A factual first pass. Mission, condition and configuration can outweigh a brochure advantage.
They do not cross. The Van's Aircraft RV-10 is the cheaper of the two at every utilisation from zero to 300 hours a year, on purchase and running cost together, so there is no break-even point to find. That is worth knowing plainly: on cost alone this is not a trade-off, and the case for the other aircraft has to be made on mission, cabin, speed or access rather than on eventual savings.
| Five-year cash, including purchase | Van's Aircraft RV-10 | Cessna 182T Skylane | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $444k (€411k) | $811k (€751k) | $367k (€340k) to Van's Aircraft RV-10 |
| 100 h / year | $494k (€458k) | $886k (€820k) | $392k (€363k) to Van's Aircraft RV-10 |
| 200 h / year | $578k (€535k) | $1.01m (€935k) | $432k (€400k) to Van's Aircraft RV-10 |
The gap widens as utilisation rises, which is the part a headline price comparison hides. Every figure uses the same planning model as the rest of the site: indicative market prices, a fixed annual base and a direct hourly cost, before financing, depreciation and tax.
Advertised range is a still-air, best-case number. With 4 people aboard and realistic reserves, plan on about 670 nm from the Van's Aircraft RV-10 against 613 nm from the Cessna 182T Skylane. On a return trip without refuelling, that is the radius that decides which destinations are on the list at all.
Against the 28,815 airports in the PlaneFit database that publish a runway length, the Van's Aircraft RV-10 has enough runway at 28,479 of them and the Cessna 182T Skylane at 27,184, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 1,181 ft and 1,512 ft against the longest runway on the field.
This is a planning comparison, not a statement that any particular operation is legal or advisable. It ignores surface, slope, elevation, temperature, obstacles and how heavily the aircraft is loaded, all of which extend the requirement. It also compares take-off distance only: landing distance is frequently the binding constraint and PlaneFit does not hold approved landing distances, so a field in these counts is not necessarily a field you can get back out of, or into.
Nothing separates them here. Neither carries an endorsement or rating requirement of its own beyond a pilot certificate for the category and class.
Four-seat experimental high-performance tourer. Its central ownership trade-off is: Excellent speed, payload and cabin value, but build quality, documentation and resale vary aircraft by aircraft.
Planning snapshot: $324k (€300k) indicative price and $31k (€28k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profileFour-seat high-performance touring and utility aircraft. Its central ownership trade-off is: A strong real-world four-seat traveller, but fuel burn and nose-heavy handling demand more budget and discipline than a 172.
Planning snapshot: $626k (€580k) indicative price and $47k (€43k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profile