| 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.
|