VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   RV-14 (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=109)
-   -   Integrated RV-14 Introduction Thread (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=84336)

Flying Scotsman 07-23-2012 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanGrant (Post 682843)
Steve, you're right about comparing this -14 to a baseline RV-7A. But we've seen that a significant portion of builders do not build the baseline VFR machine that Van's intended. Cheaper and lighter makes for a better airplane in many respects, but plenty of builders are just more interested in a touring machine: highly upholstered interior, lots of advanced avionics, more fuel on board, etc. That equals HEAVIER, and therefore often pushes past the maximum weight the RV-7 and -9 were designed for. Part of Van's calculus may be just responding to that segment of the market, and giving the homebuilder an option to build all that fancy stuff into an airframe that is engineered to carry it safely (i.e. with a bigger motor, too). This does seem to be a departure, in that it does not seem to be intended as a lightweight, VFR machine like most of Van's designs (maybe RV-10 as the exception).

I'm willing to bet even money that the empty weight figures on the spec sheet/press release are closer to bare-bones, basic seats, no fancy fully-paneled interior, just as with every other model. Marketing guys will tell you to get the best performance figures you can, and that means building your prototype as light as possible.

Quote:

Sure, its more expensive, but if you compare it to a comparably equipped RV-7A (i.e. with an IO-390 installed, Dynon SkyView, extended range tanks, etc), I'd bet that it's not fully one-third more.
If I compared it to a 200 HP RV-7A, the performance comparison would look even worse (although the cost would come into alignment). I don't know what a 210 HP -7A has for performance numbers. It *has* to, because the -7A is smaller and lighter.

Quote:

AND, this is actually designed to operate with the extra weight. The fact that Van's has done all that without impacting the performance specs very much is pretty awesome, even if it does come with a bit of a price penalty.
The first thing I saw was someone going "250 more pounds...woohhooo!" on one of these threads. Aha, says me...it's 250 pounds MAX, but you only 163 of those as useful (because the empty weight goes up). Add in the weight of 10 more gallons, and you're back down to a difference in pax+bags of only +87 pounds.

Your definition and mine of "a bit" must be different :). $18,000 is way more than "a bit" in my book, but everyone's budget is different.

Quote:

I'd totally agree that for a mission of VFR flying around the patch on weekends, mostly by myself and not including high-altitude or mountain environments, an RV-7 with an O-320 or carbureted O-360 may be a better and cheaper choice than this airplane (or an RV-4!). But for frequent long cross-country flights with 2 adults, the -14 seems to me a great evolution in Van's products (that's before even considering all the actual construction improvements that they seem to have made).

Cheers,
If price were no object, then the extra room and a bit more range might tempt me. The added cost of fuel might not be so off-putting, as well.

Hey, it's a nice-looking plane, albeit on the pricey side in my book, but people can spend their money on whatever they want and build anything the like...I'm just saying I don't think it's anything that different from what's already in the line-up, other than costing quite a bit more.

Flying Scotsman 07-23-2012 05:43 PM

BTW, what are the operating expenses? What's the fuel burn on a 210 HP IO-390 at 75% and 55% power?

RobinHou 07-23-2012 06:21 PM

Bigger, so it is perfect for mounting an O-540..... RV-14 Plus? Super 14?

NYTOM 07-23-2012 06:50 PM

The grass is always greener
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TX7A (Post 682806)
But, didn't the 7 replace the 6 out-right?
Is the 14 replacing the 7/9's?
And one more thing...
I'm still thinking about that 180hp limit on the medical proposal thing.
I'm not going to start feeling bad about my 7A just yet.
We'll see.

Yes the 7 did replace the 6 outright but I feel like all the 6 builders paid for Van's learning curve to the 7. :rolleyes: Then they came out with the 9 and I'm sure there's a lot of 7 guys that wish they had that model instead. :mad: Now they come with the forth generation side by side and it's going to be like the D model P-51. Everybody's going to secretly wish they had one. :o The crazy thing is they all look alike. A person not familiar with the RV line of side by sides can't tell the difference.
I guess I'm just still a little sad from having my plane become obsolete. I'm sure I'll get over it on my first flight. :D

Tandem46 07-23-2012 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYTOM (Post 682866)
Then they came out with the 9 and I'm sure there's a lot of 7 guys that wish they had that model instead.

Huh?? The 9 came before the 7! And the 7 is aerobatic, the 9 isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYTOM (Post 682866)
I guess I'm just still a little sad from having my plane declared obsolete.

Who declared that?

n5lp 07-23-2012 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYTOM (Post 682866)
...Everybody's going to secretly wish they had one. :o The crazy thing is they all look alike. A person not familiar with the RV line of side by sides can't tell the difference.
I guess I'm just still a little sad from having my plane declared obsolete. I'm sure I'll get over it on my first flight. :D

I have the old obsolete RV-6 and do see some advantages that the RV-14 has. i am amused to read that it is better because it is so much heavier. If you need that load carrying capability it may be exactly the plane for you. I also admire the building advantages and think the design looks good, and will look better with a tailwheel. I do think the today's builders miss out some on the learning aspects of the earlier kits where you had to figure out quite a bit on your own.

For those of us that want a light and capable 2 seat aircraft that is economical and handles without thought and wonderfully, I don't see that we have any reason to covet. All aircraft designs are compromises and the RV-14 compromise is great for some. For me the RV-6 compromise is the very best for my mission. In no way do I want to change to the latest thing. I do want to fly an RV-14 though, to see what it is like.

It seems to me that the RV-14 would be natural as a factory certified airplane for pilots that want something sporty and for things like aerobatic training. The whole thing, like the nose gear, seems just a bit more heavy duty and thus more suitable for more pilots.

pilottangocharlie 07-23-2012 07:40 PM

My first impression to the marketing of this plane is Vans attempt to get a nice performing airplane to completion in fewer hours. The modular system is very attractive to some and simplifies things. Before ordering my -7 preview plans I looked a lot into the -12 just because of the simplified build process. They haven't completely mirrored that in the -14, but a similar take on building that draws newcomers and first time builders. This could be a game changer for me as I plan to start building in 18-24 months. My main mission is a traveling machine. We will see. It's a beauty.

LifeofReiley 07-23-2012 07:48 PM

Not at all what I thought it would be... seems like a shot in the foot. Modular, well most builders do not want this. Most builders are looking to be different, have options of their own. And no slider? What? That is just wrong. :eek:

the_other_dougreeves 07-23-2012 08:21 PM

Very interesting. This seems to be a good business strategy on the part of Van's. The modular building approach and higher level of systems integration will, no doubt, lead to more completions, and probably many flying aircraft will be better for it, too. They have done their homework and will sell many kits. The influence of standardization from the -12's design really shows.

However, its not the direction my tastes are going in. A larger, more expensive airplane isn't what I'm looking or hoping for. It's a bit like what's happening in motorcycles - 1,000cc is basically considered a mid-size bike now and I fully expect the Gold Wing to start weighing in at 1,100lb soon. Is bigger always better? I think not. I offer the new CBR250R and TU250X as Exhibits A and B - simple, fun, cheap bikes that buck the "supersize me" trend.

That said, I imagine the market for an improved and factory pre-punched -4 is pretty small, and I doubt Van's is going to invest in one. So I will be happy and applaud Van's for a really well thought airplane in the -14, even if its not the airplane for me.

TODR

fmiddleton 07-23-2012 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LifeofReiley (Post 682883)
And no slider? What? That is just wrong. :eek:

And no rotary dial on this new phone? What? That is just wrong! ;)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:30 AM.