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)

Snowflake 07-24-2012 05:39 PM

32 pages later and I still don't see the value in an RV-14 over an RV-7. Mind you, I still don't see the value in the -9 over the -7 either. The -7 over the -6 I can see as incremental, but the -14 seems excessive. All have only minor performance differences and marginally different flight characteristics... But vastly larger differences to your bottom line.

The -14 seems to be solely a way to get the larger demographic into the air... I don't understand it otherwise.

I guess it's the untapped market, as Vern said earlier. The market for ICAO-sized people is saturated with all of us here on VAF, so they have to expand into a (ahem) larger market.

lostpilot28 07-24-2012 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflake (Post 683126)
32 pages later and I still don't see the value in an RV-14 over an RV-7. Mind you, I still don't see the value in the -9 over the -7 either. The -7 over the -6 I can see as incremental, but the -14 seems excessive. All have only minor performance differences and marginally different flight characteristics... But vastly larger differences to your bottom line.

The -14 seems to be solely a way to get the larger demographic into the air... I don't understand it otherwise.

I guess it's the untapped market, as Vern said earlier. The market for ICAO-sized people is saturated with all of us here on VAF, so they have to expand into a (ahem) larger market.

I agree with you, Rob. A slightly roomier cockpit would be nice, but that's the only real difference I can see with the -14. If I were a big guy then maybe it'd have more of a value.

ColoCardinal 07-24-2012 05:51 PM

I think that Tyler nailed it. The most time consuming part of the build is definately things like hooking up the fuel lines, engine controls and the like. There are so many variations on engine / prop / fuel systems that there is little help to be had for some things. Guess it's the "experimental" part!
There's a lot of room for improvment in this area and I'm glad that Van's has addressed that in the newer kits. A guy can still "experiment" to his / her hearts content.
I'm very fortunate in that my wife enjoys flying. We've flown our Cardinal as far north as to the Arctic Circle and as far south as Key West. One thing that the 2 seat RVs are poor at is load capacity. Two FAA adults, full fuel and you have room for maybe 50 lbs of luggage. Eat too much steak while on vacation and you have to leave your shoes behind.
The 14 will fill the hole between the 10 and the 7 & 8 very nicely. It's a much better choice for a cross country machine for two people than any of the others in my opinion.
I have my helmet on - go ahead an throw stones :D

lostpilot28 07-24-2012 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColoCardinal (Post 683131)
I'm very fortunate in that my wife enjoys flying. We've flown our Cardinal as far north as to the Arctic Circle and as far south as Key West. One thing that the 2 seat RVs are poor at is load capacity. Two FAA adults, full fuel and you have room for maybe 50 lbs of luggage. Eat too much steak while on vacation and you have to leave your shoes behind.

My RV-7A is 1093 empty.
me and any other FAA adult is 360 lbs (I'm 190).
Full fuel is 252 lbs.
Full baggage is 100 lbs.

My math says that totals 1805. Or were you referring to the -6?

Chino Tom 07-24-2012 06:56 PM

Baffle kit
 
Heck after installing 2 baffle kits on my -6 and then my -8A, the new
Baffle kit on the -14A alone would make me choose this kit over the others :D

ColoCardinal 07-24-2012 07:00 PM

Your's is near the bottom end of what Van's cites (1077 - 1130) for empty weight and I commend you for that. You are better off than most in that regard. It doesn't however dimish the point I'm trying to make. Add a minimal tool kit, a small survival kit and the clothes you're wearing and even you won't be carrying 100 lbs.

Jamie 07-24-2012 07:00 PM

It seems to me to be a very simple thought process from Van's point-of-view: The RV-12 is drastically easier to build than the other RV models (even without considering pulled vs. solid rivets), so take some of those features and build an EAB using the tricks they learned with the -12 and incorporate things that builders have been looking for -- namely -- more room and a bigger engine. I think we'll see completion times of the RV-14 to be quite a bit faster than all of the other kits with the exception of the 12.

I remember very well how people scratched their heads when Van's announced the -9, but as of today 755 -9/-9As are flying and countless other kits have been sold.

I wouldn't doubt Van. He's proven himself to be very adept at judging his market.

I can certainly see the appeal of the -14 -- it's purpose is to eliminate a lot of the head-scratching that goes on in the "final 90%" of the project, as well as to eliminate all of the little odds-and-ends that consume tha majority of a builder's time.

fmiddleton 07-24-2012 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vlittle (Post 683021)
I'd like to build an RV, but...
---snip---

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.

+1 on all of this. I think it's more about making it easier to build and get into, *maybe* reducing the experimental component to get people flying quickly. It's less about cannibalizing sales of the other models as attracting new people into the fold.

fstringham7a 07-24-2012 07:37 PM

RE: TIME TO .....
 
Ok guys and gals I will be the test. It took me 4 years 10 months and 4 days to build my 7A in the third bay of my three car garage. I will build the 14 in the same spot with the same tools with the same skill levels with the same folks that helped me with the 7A and we will see if one can really build the 14 faster. Now the catch. I NEED A SPONSORS TO BANK ROLL THE PROJECT AND A SUGAR DADDY TO BUY MY 7A AND LET ME FLY IT WHILE I BUILD THE 14.:eek::D;)

No takers.......I thought so.

Now I believe that many 14's will be built by many varied and skilled Experimentors. I have no doubt that multiple RV builders, first timers, and pro builders will all throw there $$$$$$ into the project and will in the end have the machine they want for the mission they invision. I look forward to the day when RV14 #2 is shown on the Vans Hobbs.

Now back to the uplifting give and take on the value of the RV14

Zero4Zulu 07-24-2012 08:40 PM

Van's company evolving
 
One thing for sure, is that the RV14 demonstrates how Van's company has evolved.
They have used CAD for a while at Van's but it appears they have stepped up the quality of the CAD, the design process and all that is involved in bringing a new model to market.
I think this plane is sort of a stepping stone to bringing more designs forward more easily and cleanly. In other words, it looks like the company is being run more like a modern high tech. company.

They will probably need more square footage if the economy ever gets better.

I think it's a beautiful traveling plane. Can't wait to see it at the Homecoming in August.


Steve

lostpilot28 07-24-2012 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColoCardinal (Post 683140)
Your's is near the bottom end of what Van's cites (1077 - 1130) for empty weight and I commend you for that. You are better off than most in that regard. It doesn't however dimish the point I'm trying to make. Add a minimal tool kit, a small survival kit and the clothes you're wearing and even you won't be carrying 100 lbs.

My RV is 10 lbs below the exact middle of Van's range when empty...but, don't forget that I still said I'm 190 (with clothes) which is 20 over the FAA "standard". There are ways to build light, and I didn't bother with any of them. My airplane just came out the way it did. Could be much lighter, could be heavier.

Anyway, all of this is just perspective...my whole point is that most RV's out there have a LOT of utility, and that the comment of two FAA sized people with full fuel puts you at gross with 50 lbs of baggage isn't really accurate. It WOULD be accurate if you had a very portly RV-7A (at 1158 lbs)...but the typical build isn't that heavy. Where's Dan C.'s spreadsheet when you need it! :D

I really do like the -14...very neat airplane...but I agree with a lot of the comments that it's not significantly different than a -7A. Especially for the cost.

Doug 07-24-2012 09:24 PM

I'm thinking IO-540 Super 14 here....

Do you suppose the RV-10 engine mount might work?

Captain Avgas 07-24-2012 09:51 PM

I think a lot of people here are mistaken if they think the RV14 is an optional "fat man's RV7" or a "new category RV", as the RV9 was. The RV14 is the replacement for the RV7.

I remember when the the RV7 first hit the market and many of the RV6 owners said the RV6 would continue to sell...but it didn't...sales of the RV6 evaporated overnight. I'm guessing sales of the RV7 will suffer much the same fate.

I suspect that Vans will do a deal with Lycoming to get the price of the IO390 down substantially (only one engine option means volume buying advantage) and in the end there will not be a big difference in price between the RV7 and the RV14. When the price difference is not that significant, not many will opt for the RV7 with its tighter cabin, less load carrying capacity, less range, longer and more complex build program, and very dodgy nose gear.

rph142 07-24-2012 10:11 PM

I like the plane but I'm disappointed in the direction it's headed. More load capability, performance, ease of build are all nice attributes and an improvement over the seven, but I just can't get over the cost. If the income distribution amongst potential builders is a bell curve, then this plane occupies a space even farther out on the curve. And how much easier can they make it to build? You haven't lived until you have rebuilt your HS because the H frame jig you built was out of square :o

Flying Scotsman 07-24-2012 10:29 PM

There's another factor involved in the price "issue" here, too...

A LOT of people buy used (either run-out or mid-time) engines for -7s and -8s...O-360s and IO-360s are widely available. That can significantly reduce the build cost.

I don't think IO-390s are quite so plentiful, are they?

rjtjrt 07-24-2012 11:38 PM

To quote a post in another forum from someone who is at Oshkosh and spoke to the Vans representatives whillst viewing the RV-14
"Ken also suggested that they are working on a deal with Lycoming for
the IO390 that would see it at the same (or maybe a fraction less)
than the IO360."

John

pilottangocharlie 07-24-2012 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjtjrt (Post 683194)
To quote a post in another forum from someone who is at Oshkosh and spoke to the Vans representatives whillst viewing the RV-14
"Ken also suggested that they are working on a deal with Lycoming for
the IO390 that would see it at the same (or maybe a fraction less)
than the IO360."

John

That would be awesome!

Sig600 07-25-2012 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug (Post 683173)
I'm thinking IO-540 Super 14 here....

Do you suppose the RV-10 engine mount might work?

Since the cabin is 2" narrower I'm guessing the RV-10 mount wouldn't be a bolt on replacement. Speculation.


I have a feeling this airplane is going to be like the iPad. Everyone though "oh it's just a big iPhone, how stupid." Then it got into the hands of the public and people quickly realized the magic. We'll see what happens.

RudiGreyling 07-25-2012 04:15 AM

RV14 = New Model 2012 RV7 XL

over time the new RV7 and RV9 customer will die out just like the RV6.

I wished Vans rather entered a new market segment, updated single or bush plane or something cheap...but they played it safe, and improved their current market position.

Personally I wish it was something else.

Kind Regards
Rudi

pierre smith 07-25-2012 04:37 AM

Back home.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug (Post 683173)
I'm thinking IO-540 Super 14 here....

Do you suppose the RV-10 engine mount might work?

Doug, Dan Horton and I already discusssed that option briefly.

50 more horsepower would make this "Bubba" RV awesome!

Methinks that it's just a matter of time!

Best,

Doug 07-25-2012 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pierre smith (Post 683208)
Doug, Dan Horton and I already discusssed that option briefly.
50 more horsepower would make this "Bubba" RV awesome!

On a superficial level the numbers do add up. An additional 90lbs for the engine and full fuel leaves a very respectable 410lbs for pilot, pax and baggage.

Vans seems to have recaptured the beautiful proportions of the RV-6 and cleaned up the transitions, I believe the '14 with an IO-540 would completely blow everything else out of the water. I can't help thinking this is what Vans had in mind.

This is indeed a very exciting option.

Mike S 07-25-2012 09:03 AM

Watching the video about the design of the 14, one thing that struck me was the tunnel for the exhaust.

I have some doubts that the RV 10 engine mount will fit due to the tunnel, and exhaust setup.

It would be quite interesting to see how they got the exhaust and nose gear "spring" all setup.

Sig600 07-25-2012 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike S (Post 683257)
Watching the video about the design of the 14, one thing that struck me was the tunnel for the exhaust.

I have some doubts that the RV 10 engine mount will fit due to the tunnel, and exhaust setup.

It would be quite interesting to see how they got the exhaust and nose gear "spring" all setup.

Prob be a lot easier when the tailwheel is released.

Flying Scotsman 07-25-2012 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug (Post 683222)
On a superficial level the numbers do add up. An additional 90lbs for the engine and full fuel leaves a very respectable 410lbs for pilot, pax and baggage.

Vans seems to have recaptured the beautiful proportions of the RV-6 and cleaned up the transitions, I believe the '14 with an IO-540 would completely blow everything else out of the water. I can't help thinking this is what Vans had in mind.

This is indeed a very exciting option.

Unless Van reprints this article with the numbers "10" or "9" replaced with "14". :)

http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf

Doug 07-25-2012 04:15 PM

Yes only Vans can tell us what the limits of this airplane are.

I note the max hp and Vne are not specified in anything released so far.

Captain Avgas 07-25-2012 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug (Post 683222)
I believe the '14 with an IO-540 would completely blow everything else out of the water. I can't help thinking this is what Vans had in mind.

I can't help thinking this is NOT what Vans had in mind. In fact I suspect that comments like this probably have Vans engineers reaching for the Prozac bottle. :D

pierre smith 07-26-2012 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas (Post 683366)
I can't help thinking this is NOT what Vans had in mind. In fact I suspect that comments like this probably have Vans engineers reaching for the Prozac bottle. :D

...THAT happened years ago when the modded RV-4 went over 300 MPH with an IO-540!:)

Now we have 540 powered RV-4's, -6's, -7's and -8's. The -14 can't be far behind, huh?

The old adage, "What a man won't spend for a ride!" is so typically American.

Best,

upperdeck 07-26-2012 07:41 PM

I spoke with one of the Vans guys at their EAA booth.

One of the interesting things he said is that all of the prepunched holes are punched to final size and their testing showed that they did not need deburring. The time saving here must be huge!

He mentioned the higher cost is due to things like the now standard options that would otherwise be a somewhat hidden cost to the builder. Wiring harness, etc. He thought the final price would be only slightly higher than an similar 7 and mentioned 85k.

He also said that they will be producing a tail dragger version and will be testing other engine options.

Flying Scotsman 07-26-2012 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upperdeck (Post 683675)
One of the interesting things he said is that all of the prepunched holes are punched to final size and their testing showed that they did not need deburring.

Pretty soon, they'll be dimpling them, as well. :)

Doug 07-26-2012 10:33 PM

I think you are missing my point...
 
Firstly, I am not a proponent of the rocket or superized RVs, I dont even support fitting an O-360 into an RV-9. These may all work out for the builders and good luck to them. I prefer to stand behind the designer's recommendations. That is not to say I don't like the concept, but I listen to Vans and to my own engineering experience and gladly look on with interest.

Vans is a smart and shrewd businessman, he knows where to strike the nail.

Allow me to speculate....

May I suggest Vans would also be watching these rockets and superizing and be thinking this looks fun, they fit my company's design expertise and I could do it better and capture this segment of the market as well. If I (Vans that is) were to build a 260hp plus two seat aerobatic airplane what would be my approach?

The design brief for the engineering department would be for just such an airframe, then pick the best of the breed and the most popular configuration, fix as many of those pesky construction issues as possible and as best as we can make it easy and affordable to build ( just like the 12 ).

I think this is what the RV-14 is!

Like most I am a bit underwhelmed by the use of the IO-390, I certainly would not build one nor trade my RV-6 for an RV-14 with this engine, but I believe they see this as the entry level version. Lycoming seems to be appealing to the Experimental market to improve the acceptance of this engine, and Vans seems to suggest they are negotiating a good price such that the total package will be comparable to the RV-7.

So I'm speculating that the RV-14 design has been conceived to accept the bigger engine. The larger sizing and numbers seem to support this, none of the published data precludes this and it seems to simply make good sense to me that this is the approach.

If Vans never endorses fitting a big engine to this airframe - fine, I respect that and would not support fitting one - but then to me the RV-14 simply doesn't make sense.

Sig600 07-26-2012 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upperdeck (Post 683675)
I spoke with one of the Vans guys at their EAA booth.

One of the interesting things he said is that all of the prepunched holes are punched to final size and their testing showed that they did not need deburring. The time saving here must be huge!

He mentioned the higher cost is due to things like the now standard options that would otherwise be a somewhat hidden cost to the builder. Wiring harness, etc. He thought the final price would be only slightly higher than an similar 7 and mentioned 85k.

He also said that they will be producing a tail dragger version and will be testing other engine options.

I just wet myself.

Bruce Russell 07-27-2012 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying Scotsman (Post 683703)
Pretty soon, they'll be dimpling them, as well. :)


They already pre-dimple. The holes for the flush rivets on the leading edge skins of the RV-12 Wing come out of the crate with the dimples.
Bruce

GHRoss3 07-27-2012 10:43 AM

Take RV-14 Lessons and Apply to RV-7/8/9 Manuals & Kits
 
It would be great if Vans revamped the current RV-7/8/9 prepunched kits to no drilling and deburing required. That would greatly speed up these kits build time. They could also upgraded the manuals to reflect the best practices found in the RV-10 and 14 manuals. Just a thought...

Jamie 07-27-2012 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Russell (Post 683760)
They already pre-dimple. The holes for the flush rivets on the leading edge skins of the RV-12 Wing come out of the crate with the dimples.
Bruce

Wow. Does anyone know if this is an automated process or if they are doing it by hand? Just curious.

Bruce 07-27-2012 11:18 AM

Steve,

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.[/quote]

You might be on to something here. BUT
it is the RV 8B

30 inches wide
Showplane canopy
IO-720
single seat.

Nemesis or RV8B(BIG)

Bruce 07-27-2012 11:24 AM

I did like the new qualities of the 14.
New gear--10
Wings------10
Tip up with struts in back. NICE
Taller canopy
No fiberglass cap like 10.

Would not go with prewire.
Would not go with engine. IO-540 instead.
Would be great back country plane with 540

Still can't build this plane for under 90-100K.

Should take 1500 hours unless you go see Jay Pratt.:rolleyes:


MY .05

flion 07-27-2012 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHRoss3 (Post 683774)
It would be great if Vans revamped the current RV-7/8/9 prepunched kits to no drilling and deburing required. That would greatly speed up these kits build time. They could also upgraded the manuals to reflect the best practices found in the RV-10 and 14 manuals. Just a thought...

I have to admit, I'm greatly enjoying the accuracy of my RV-10 kit, with all the pre-punching and all. But I also greatly enjoyed building my RV-6A, without any of that, and feel much more confident of my building skills as a result. I think Van's is beginning to edge over into doing too much. Just my perspective as a builder. I also avoided the quick-build kits or buying someone else's project because I wanted the fun of doing the entire thing myself; why should someone else get my fun? But I also understand that others don't share my love of building and are more focused on the finished project. Maybe Van's should consider putting a design through the certification process to cater to all the people out there who'd love to have an RV without all the building. That's not sarcasm; there might be a real market out there.

DanH 07-27-2012 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pierre smith (Post 683208)
Dan Horton and I already discusssed that option briefly.

I may have been drinking at the time ;)

Neal@F14 07-27-2012 12:14 PM

I predict all the good N numbers with "14" in them will get reserved very quickly ;)

Neal@F14 07-27-2012 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce (Post 683780)
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.

You might be on to something here. BUT
it is the RV 8B

30 inches wide
Showplane canopy
IO-720
single seat.

Nemesis or RV8B(BIG)

How about a 3-seater with single pilot seat up front on the centerline and a bench seat for two in the back with removable stick in the middle :D


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