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)

paul mosher 07-23-2012 08:50 PM

Slower
 
What? A slower VNE? I would be really unhappy with my 7 if the 14's VNE was 300. .

pilottangocharlie 07-23-2012 09:24 PM

In regard to the higher kit price. I will be interested to see how much more comes with each kit (wiring harnesses, electrical components, and so on). That could explain quite a bit of the price difference.

bhassel 07-23-2012 09:29 PM

Yeah, I don't think you can compare the 14 to a 7 or 9 in terms of the kit and cost. It'll be more like the 12 in that reguard.

Bob

KTM520guy 07-23-2012 10:01 PM

The 14 will have it's market just as the 7 does. If you don't like one buy the other or do the correct thing and get an 8 :)

rgmwa 07-23-2012 10:03 PM

Definitely an impressive design. I assume they see a good market for it, but given the general state of the world economy and aviation generally, it's not the direction I thought Vans would go - more weight, more power, more cost, more complexity, but offset by greater modularity and integration.

It will be interesting to see how well it sells. I'm happy though - unlike all you -6,-7 and -9 drivers, my RV-12 still has no competition in the Van's lineup (except maybe for the improved view out of the window) :D

johnny stick 07-23-2012 10:15 PM

Experimental engine
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DanBaier (Post 682832)
If I were making the choice today, I think I'd be sensitive to the pending petition relative to recreational flying on a drivers license. I don't think this airplane would do as well if you dropped back 30hp to make the limit.

So, I'd still be choosing between 160hp -9 or 180hp -7. As it came out (-7), it's difficult to imagine a better flying airplane.

It's a good looking airplane and I'm sure it will do well.

Dan

Well from what I understand, if you use an experimental engine you can name it anything you want, like an ACME 150, and rate the horsepower at anything you want, like 150 hp max continuous at 2200 RPM. Right?

Captain Avgas 07-23-2012 10:43 PM

Builders will buy the RV14A over the RV7A just to get the improved nose gear. I certainly would.

RV7A builders/flyers are so twitchy and nervous about the failure rate of the existing nose gear design that they have already spent over a half a million dollars buying a third party brace device that no-one can be certain really works (at this early stage).

Vans wont sell too many more RV7As.

Sad for me....I've been superceded even before I get into the air. :(

tjo 07-23-2012 10:46 PM

I haven't read the whole thread, but I am kind of surprised at anything negative that is being said. I think the market is fairly obvious. The 6, 7, 8 are all single person aerobatic machines, for the most part, with your typical modern pilot in mind. The 14 looks to me to be a true two passenger aerobatic machine. You pays your money and makes your choice, simple as that. As for me, I went with a 9, but I can definitely see the benefit in a 14. Heck with the aerobatic weight capacity it has, maybe you could go with a single pilot, decent fuel load, and add weapons systems.

Just sayin'

Tim

Kobwo 07-24-2012 01:48 AM

This new model sits very well with me. I'm almost 6'4" and 220lbs. Not fat, just big. There are a lot of people out here that struggle with the, "will it fit?" question. Several buddies would like to build but none of the models except the -10 fits. I started a -7 knowing that it would always be tight after having sat in one. It would have made the long legs almost impossible for me. So, I decided to go for an -8, hoping that it would fit better. It does but just a bit and my wife has to sit in the back. Not necessarily a bad thing for me but she sees it differently, in a tolerable way. Which means she'd probably fly less often. This hits the nail on the head for me at least. I wonder though, can I economically go with the IO-375? The 205hp version would be close to the 390 and at about 10k cheaper to boot. Also, the spec sheet article states "basic aerobatics," will it perform the same acro as a -7 or -8? And lastly, a tail wheel is a must!

Thanks Vans!

gasman 07-24-2012 03:56 AM

I think the 14 would still perform honorably with an O360. And with a touch from Lycon, would only be short 10 hp for a LOT less $$.

chevy 07-24-2012 04:04 AM

Hey I am a cheese burger boy..... I need the 14 :D .... Now can I afford it.....mmmmmm

Or should I say how bad do I want it....:rolleyes:

gasman 07-24-2012 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas (Post 682934)
Builders will buy the RV14A over the RV7A just to get the improved nose gear. I certainly would.

RV7A builders/flyers are so twitchy and nervous about the failure rate of the existing nose gear design that they have already spent over a half a million dollars buying a third party brace device that no-one can be certain really works (at this early stage).

Vans wont sell too many more RV7As.

Sad for me....I've been superceded even before I get into the air. :(

Alan will be pleased to read this.... they have already spent over a half a million dollars buying a third party brace device

Van's will be sad to read this.... Vans wont sell too many more RV7As.

WingsOnWheels 07-24-2012 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYTOM (Post 682796)
Now all you guys who are building Seven's know how the "Six" builders felt when the RV-7's were introduced! :eek:

Haha, I like it. Oh..wait, I'm still building a -6...sh*t.

Sig600 07-24-2012 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobwo (Post 682958)
This new model sits very well with me. I'm almost 6'4" and 220lbs. Not fat, just big. There are a lot of people out here that struggle with the, "will it fit?" question. Several buddies would like to build but none of the models except the -10 fits. I started a -7 knowing that it would always be tight after having sat in one. It would have made the long legs almost impossible for me. So, I decided to go for an -8, hoping that it would fit better. It does but just a bit and my wife has to sit in the back. Not necessarily a bad thing for me but she sees it differently, in a tolerable way. Which means she'd probably fly less often. This hits the nail on the head for me at least. I wonder though, can I economically go with the IO-375? The 205hp version would be close to the 390 and at about 10k cheaper to boot. Also, the spec sheet article states "basic aerobatics," will it perform the same acro as a -7 or -8? And lastly, a tail wheel is a must!

Thanks Vans!

I'm in the same boat size wise. That said, I've got plenty of time in the RV-6 and the only time I felt even a little cramped was with a passenger of the same dimensions, even then though it wasn't really a big deal.

I have mixed emotions over the 14. Aerobatic with an RV-10 wing? Will it handle an IO-540? Really curious to see how it looks as a taildragger.

If I were in the market for the 7 or 9 this would really give me pause, but it's a lot of extra money for slightly more room. Does have some cross country performance advantages.

Now if they would take the modular approach with the RV-10 I think that would be a home run.

RV7Guy 07-24-2012 07:14 AM

2 place 10
 
The best thing I can think of to call it is a two place 10!!

Nice design. I don't think it will hurt the sales of existing 7's. Many will simply not have the funding for a 14.

rbibb 07-24-2012 08:22 AM

I like it. I'm slow building a -10 but really don't need the extra seats. The spiraling cost of avgas and an IO-540 give me pause.

Now I'd like to see one of these in the -14.

http://www.deltahawkengines.com/econom00.shtml

Might have to think about building one of these instead of the 10.

The fact it can do limited aerobatics makes it even more attractive.

Richard Bibb

hecilopter 07-24-2012 08:35 AM

Pretty airplane with more room but...
 
I like everything about it except it specs to be slower on more fuel burn :(

I was hoping for an airplane designed solely for speed but still with the RV heritage to compete with the lancairs, etc. 200 kts on 180 hp :)

vlittle 07-24-2012 09:30 AM

In my opinion, the reason Van's has introduced the RV-14 is that they have been meticulous in their market research.

In order to grow revenue, they wanted to provide a product that would appeal to a new customer base and to eliminate the many objections that potential new builders have, such as:

I'd like to build an RV, but...

They take too long to build;
Wiring is hard;
They are too small for big bodies;
I can't carry my bikes;
I hear that the nose gear design is marginal;
I hear that the steps break;
I hear that the gear shimmies;
I want to travel long distances, but want to have fun as well (aerobatics);

Notice that price is not the biggest objection. For someone who wants to build an airplane, they will eventually find a way.

Some of the considerations are important to the spousal units. Comfort is always a consideration on long trips, especially with non-pilot passengers.

Finally, a significant amount of Van's business is export. The more complete a kit can be made, including wiring and avionics, the more attractive the kit becomes. International clients spend a lot of money on shipping, so bundling everything you need in a few subkit shipments makes sense. Spending $50 on shipping a $5 component and waiting weeks for it to arrive is a problem.

I probably have overlooked a bunch of benefits, but I think this aircraft will have an appeal well beyond the zealots that habituate the VAF forum.

bsacks05 07-24-2012 09:51 AM

If I were about 15 years older, I would sell my -9 and get started on the -14. In fifteen years we plan to be retired, own an airpark house and hangar, and we'll be older (less flexible and more in need of comfort while travelling.) I would spare no expense and make it into the ultimate travelling machine, and still have lots of fun locally.

I'm impressed...and surprised, but for now I'm sticking with my stalwart RV9.

rockwoodrv9 07-24-2012 09:55 AM

nose wheel
 
My interest is the nose wheel. I want to see how it works and if it is possible to modify the -9a I am building. The front wheel is the reason I almost went for a Lancair over the 9. Maybe Alan can come up with a mod to make it work.

I would like to see the 14 up close. I have hope the medical exemption will be approved, so I don't think the 14 is what I would want, but I do like the changes to help with the intimidating parts of the build. Maybe the wiring and instrument packages will fit the 9. In real life, I could have Stein build exactly what I want, so shouldn't make a difference.

f1rocket 07-24-2012 10:06 AM

The way I see it, you get 6 knots over a -6 for a whole lot of money, RV-10 money (less engine). It's a beautiful airplane and will appeal to new buyers but I don't see a lot of people dumping their -6's and -7's for one. Now the -9 is another thing all together. I never saw the logic in that one.

fl-mike 07-24-2012 10:40 AM

Oh well, Van has never been accused of being revolutionary. I guess bigger folks have bigger wallets.

My hopes for a tapered wing 8 are dashed...for now. Build on!

Now the 7/9 builders can rib the spoiled 14 builders about how they had to cut and fit the canopy and fabricate a fairing. But, the 3/4/6 ore smelting builders still hold the high ground!

TX7A 07-24-2012 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fl-mike (Post 683043)
But, the 3/4/6 ore smelting builders still hold the high ground!

Now that right there is funny! :D

Kram 07-24-2012 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f1rocket (Post 683032)
The way I see it, you get 6 knots over a -6 for a whole lot of money, RV-10 money (less engine). It's a beautiful airplane and will appeal to new buyers but I don't see a lot of people dumping their -6's and -7's for one. Now the -9 is another thing all together. I never saw the logic in that one.

The RV 9 caters to those who can sacrifice acrobatic in favor of better range.

LifeofReiley 07-24-2012 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kram (Post 683062)
The RV 9 caters to those who can sacrifice acrobatic in favor of better range.

Ummm... I don't think so, full the 7 carries 42 gallons to the 9 carrying 38.

pmccoy 07-24-2012 12:26 PM

Quote:

The RV 9 caters to those who can sacrifice acrobatic in favor of better range.
I am building a 9A based on the low stall/landing speed. I have no desire for aerobatics, and I am a low time pilot. Starting building a 9A with only 82 hours on my ticket. Seems the proper choice for my mission statement. Now, 6.5 years later, I can't wait to get in the air. Almost done.

I see the 14 as a nice alternative to build faster based on lessons learned over the years. If I were starting today it would be a hard decision.

flyboy1963 07-24-2012 12:27 PM

...longest most viewed thread this decade??? :-)
 
...oh, I might as well chime in!
poor Van's, they will get nothing but (well intentioned) armchair quarterbacking on this one!
My first thoughts were;
gee, they beefed up a -9 wing and put it on a 7!?!?......but not quite.
I like all of the 'improvements', and I'm sure a lot of builders will go for it, but if it's not just a 7/9 fuselage, I think they really missed the chance to make it wider. I'm not a big guy, so the leg and headroom is ok, but gee, could really use some wiggle room side to side!

I am curious about the speed, if the canopy is just popped up a few inches, does that really equate to plain ol' frontal area drag?

..no, nothing is ever simple is it?

my last thought; perhaps this thing is headed for certification?..or is Van way to smart for that !! :)

William Slaughter 07-24-2012 12:43 PM

How wide does it need to be?
 
According to the spec sheet, it is 3" wider than a 7, and only 2" shy of being as wide as a 10. Of course as an 8 builder, anything over two feet wide* just seems excessive to me. :D

* Shoulder width at the pilots seat, per Van's spec sheet.

Flying Scotsman 07-24-2012 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Slaughter (Post 683076)
How wide does it need to be?

Are you kidding? Have you been to the mall lately and seen the average size of people now?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...health-obesity

Not good. Maybe Van's really IS onto something here.

I can see it 30 years from now. The RV-23 has a cockpit 60" wide at the seat level (but only 50" wide at the deck), weighs 1800 pounds empty, and takes an IO-720 to haul through the air.

kentb 07-24-2012 01:12 PM

Whooo.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying Scotsman (Post 683078)
I can see it 30 years from now. The RV-23 has a cockpit 60" wide at the seat level (but only 50" wide at the deck), weighs 1800 pounds empty, and takes an IO-720 to haul through the air.

And the side-by-side version will be even wider. :D

Kent

scsmith 07-24-2012 02:14 PM

32"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by William Slaughter (Post 683076)
According to the spec sheet, it is 3" wider than a 7, and only 2" shy of being as wide as a 10. Of course as an 8 builder, anything over two feet wide just seems excessive to me. :D

Hate to break it to you, but your -8 is quite a bit over 2 ft wide.:p

pilottangocharlie 07-24-2012 02:55 PM

From the talk here anyone that builds this new model is destined to be hated by all. Maybe the main objective of this design isn't to target just those that need a wider airplane. What percentage of kits sold today make it to first flight with the original builder? If the process can be shortened and simplified it decreases the chances of the kit becoming a pile of metal in an attic or garage. Four to five years of building is not uncommon for a lot of people. As a first time builder looking at this new offering I can factor in some additional expense to have a finished airplane in a substantially shorter amount of time. As fellow builders we should embrace the design and use it to bring more people into homebuilding and possibly aviation in general rather than mumble how we wouldn't spend the extra cash on something like this. Does it meet every single mission out there? No, but the 172 I currently rent definitely doesn't either.

Kram 07-24-2012 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilottangocharlie (Post 683100)
From the talk here anyone that builds this new model is destined to be hated by all. Maybe the main objective of this design isn't to target just those that need a wider airplane. What percentage of kits sold today make it to first flight with the original builder? If the process can be shortened and simplified it decreases the chances of the kit becoming a pile of metal in an attic or garage. Four to five years of building is not uncommon for a lot of people. As a first time builder looking at this new offering I can factor in some additional expense to have a finished airplane in a substantially shorter amount of time. As fellow builders we should embrace the design and use it to bring more people into homebuilding and possibly aviation in general rather than mumble how we wouldn't spend the extra cash on something like this. Does it meet every single mission out there? No, but the 172 I currently rent definitely doesn't either.

You got that right, I have been wanting to build a 9 for over 1 year now. This is the best of everything.

brianwallis 07-24-2012 03:12 PM

the proof.... is in the puddin
 
Regardless of all the armchair quarterbacking... I was very impressed with the new videos and graphics. Time and the market will tell it's fate. I suspect Vans thought long and hard about this one.... I do think people will appreciate the extra margins it provides.... kind of like a 182 vs a 172.... We shall see..... I'm hoping for the very best!
Best,
Brian Wallis
"With Inflation, there is hope for me to be a millionaire yet!"
quote by me

David Paule 07-24-2012 03:25 PM

It looks like the RV-12s are flying after about 1,000 hours of building. With about the same level of kit maturity, plans development and integration on the RV-14A, I'd bet that they'll be flying well under 1,500 hours. Maybe even lower.

The RV-14A will fit more people, have better visibility and although it's not an LSA, it has nearly the same performance as the older two-seaters. It'll carry more, too.

It'll sell, and the buyers and builders will be some of the people who've so far passed on the older kits.

Dave
RV-3B, horizontal stabilizer skins in progress now

rgmwa 07-24-2012 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vlittle (Post 683021)
Finally, a significant amount of Van's business is export. The more complete a kit can be made, including wiring and avionics, the more attractive the kit becomes. International clients spend a lot of money on shipping, so bundling everything you need in a few subkit shipments makes sense. Spending $50 on shipping a $5 component and waiting weeks for it to arrive is a problem.

You're right there! I'm in Australia, and my RV-12 will have cost $88,000 USD by the time it's finished - without paint. Shipping and exchange rates are serious considerations for overseas builders.

Flying Scotsman 07-24-2012 03:35 PM

On a serious note...what exactly is different/quicker about this one?
All the aluminum components are formed and pre-punched
for all the rivet and bolt holes. The ?matched-hole? punching
technology makes the airframe essentially self-jigging: when all
the holes line up, the airframe must be straight. As with all other
RV kits, all welding is complete. Wing spars come fully assembled
and ready to install. The canopy has been the focus of considerable
design effort. It should install with much less effort than
any previous RV. Fully designed wiring, avionics and engine
installation packages will be available that reduce the time spent
on those traditionally very time-consuming tasks dramatically.
The 7,8,9,10,12 are all prepunched, right? So that's no different. I believe they all come with pre-assembled spars. Also no different. The canopy construction seems perhaps easier, so that's a plus. There might be some gains to be had on pre-packaged/designed wiring harnesses and avionics packages (or not...I don't know how many people would go that route vs. choosing their own). Full-up engine installation kits would *definitely* be a plus, assuming *everything* is included and it all fits correctly "out of the box" (along with clear instructions and schematics to go with it).

Hard to see "dramatic" improvements in build time, but there may be some there...

pilottangocharlie 07-24-2012 04:08 PM

In reading through build logs it seems some builders spend nearly half their time with the construction that comes after assembling the major metal components. If I understand correctly the design of the -14, once a wing is built its complete and ready. FWF slows a lot of people down too. There are countless threads on "what length prop/throttle cable do I need?" or "where do I penetrate the firewall for these connections?". Van has answered questions and time spent here with a seamless approach to building. Having a better build manual should greatly reduce build time as well. Imagine getting your first kit and very little instruction on the how-to. That could be frustrating.

Jamie 07-24-2012 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying Scotsman (Post 683109)
On a serious note...what exactly is different/quicker about this one?
[indent]All the aluminum components are formed and pre-punched
for all the rivet and bolt holes. The ?matched-hole? punching
technology makes the airframe ...

I believe the key word here is "all". As you know on our build there we're lots of little strips, brackets, plates, etc that had to be measured, cut, etc that consumed considerable time. Only the sheet metal parts of the 7 were pre-punched and virtually no brackets, gussets, etc were provided.

Remember your canopy frame? That alone is a huge improvement, IMHO.

rockwoodrv9 07-24-2012 05:25 PM

correct
 
Tyler, as a first time builder I agree with you.

It is interesting reading the posts about how the 14 isn't any better than the 7 or 9 and costs more. Posts on how it will not be that much faster to build than the other kits. All of this without seeing the plans or instruction manual.

I admit it is fun to guess on why Vans did this model and not the one I would really like. It is also interesting reading what sounds like some are almost mad that Vans came out with a new model.

My son in law is going to build a Factory 5 car. I asked him which one he was going to build. He said the 33 Hot Rod. I like the Mk4 Roadster. When we were discussing why we would do different cars, it was easy to see what was important to him was different than what I wanted in a car. The thing is, neither of us got mad at Factory 5 or each other because we wanted different models.

I have a friend that flys a Husky so he can fly and land at his ranch. My partner has a Citation Ultra because he wants to get places fast (and for his ego! haha)

There are 2 things on the 9 I would change - bigger baggage area to fit a couple bikes or small motorcycle and the nose wheel. This 14 appears to change both of those issues. I am happy with the 9, and I am sure I would be happy with the 14 too. Sometimes money is not the reason a person picks what plane they want to build.


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