VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-14
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #261  
Old 07-23-2012, 03:45 PM
fstringham7a fstringham7a is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: St. George
Posts: 973
Default RE:to hot ... To cold ..... Or

Like the old three bears .... Too hot or too cold or just right ..... Time will tell !!!!
But if I were a gambler my $$$$$$$$ is with Van and his new introduction "RV14". I like it over my 7A for a lot of reasons.....beginning with the Canopy.
__________________
Frank @ 1L8 ... RV7A ... N74BZ (SOLD)

Last edited by fstringham7a : 07-23-2012 at 03:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 07-23-2012, 03:48 PM
Mike S's Avatar
Mike S Mike S is offline
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dayton Airpark, NV A34
Posts: 15,420
Default

They got the landing gear right
__________________
Mike Starkey
VAF 909

Rv-10, N210LM.

Flying as of 12/4/2010

Phase 1 done, 2/4/2011

Sold after 240+ wonderful hours of flight.

"Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 07-23-2012, 03:49 PM
JonJay's Avatar
JonJay JonJay is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Battleground
Posts: 4,348
Default

Much simpler build with all of the standardization of components and the new canopy design. More room and comfort, best in class visibility, typical RV performance. I like it.
People are getting bigger with each generation. I think the improvements to the kit and the other design features will make this a very attractive option for new builders.
There may also be an economic upside for Van's. They aren't stupid. Anytime they can produce more in house on their automated machinery than they outsource, like welded canopy frames, they win. They can also sell you all of the subsystems like fuel systems, avionics, etc...This stuff is built into their program.

Fun stuff.
__________________
Smart People do Stupid things all the time. I know, I've seen me do'em.

RV6 - Builder/Flying
Bucker Jungmann
Fiat G.46 -(restoration in progress, if I have enough life left in me)
RV1 - Proud Pilot.
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 07-23-2012, 03:59 PM
rockwoodrv9 rockwoodrv9 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Meridian ID, Aspen CO, Okemos MI
Posts: 2,645
Default

I just got the wing kit for the -9. What I see is a chance to use some of the modular avionics and wiring harness making my build easier. It sure makes sense to make the parts that are intimidating for some of us builders can use and install with ease. Now if they make a firewall forward kit that is finished and all I have to do is bolt the motor mounts, I will be thrilled.
__________________
rockwoodrv9a
Williamston MI
O-320 D2A
Awaiting DAR Inspection
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 07-23-2012, 04:19 PM
Flying Scotsman Flying Scotsman is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,256
Default

What's current price of an experimental IO-390? Best info I could find was $32K (vs. $29K for an IO-360 180HP...ouch...it's gone up quite a bit since I bought mine).

ETA: I should have known that 32k was too low...40K seems more accurate...

If 7A wing kits are $6850, and -14A wing kits are $9000, that's about 30% more. Assume that holds for all the kits, and we have an airframe that will cost about $29,000 (vs. 22K for the 7A).

Right off the bat, an $18,000 difference in price.

50 gals = 300 lbs vs. 42 gals = 252 lbs
subtracting those from the max GW gives
14A: 510 lbs
7A: 471 lbs

app. 40 pounds difference w/ full tanks, or $450/lb.

It does appear to have more range, though, I'll give you that...around 925 or so at 75% power, vs. 765 for a 7A w/ 180HP, 1100 more or less at 55% power vs. 925, so that is significant.

So...more room, some additional range, 20% heavier and 35% more expensive, prop, avionics and interior not included in computations.

I wouldn't argue with Van's, but I wouldn't pay the extra money.
__________________
Steve "Flying Scotsman"
Santa Clarita, CA
PP-ASEL, ASES, Instrument Airplane

RV-7A N660WS flying!
#8,000

Last edited by Flying Scotsman : 07-23-2012 at 04:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 07-23-2012, 04:36 PM
bryanrene bryanrene is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: waco, texas
Posts: 64
Default interesting

Two rv7a listings have been posted in classified in the last 30 minutes, one finished and one project. Are people feeling like there is blood in the water?
__________________
Crash Taylor

Pitts S2C purchased and flying
Pitts S1C bought and sold
Rv4-bought and sold x2
F-1 Rocket bought and sold
" live each day like it was your last,
One day you will be right"

2019
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 07-23-2012, 04:38 PM
jbagley's Avatar
jbagley jbagley is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aloha, or
Posts: 282
Default

I gotta agree with Steve. My O320 powered RV6A is pretty economical. There's no doubt this RV14 is better in a lot of ways, but it doesn't seem better enough for me to pay the difference.

I'm wondering if they will continue to sell RV7A kits, kinda like they continue to sell RV4 kits.
__________________
James Bagley Jr
RV6A flying
RV6 #2 tail done and wings done
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 07-23-2012, 04:49 PM
DanBaier's Avatar
DanBaier DanBaier is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 669
Default

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
__________________
RV7A (N7101) - Flying 10/2008
CFI- SE/ME/Inst
A&P
KC2ZEL
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 07-23-2012, 05:08 PM
rockwoodrv9 rockwoodrv9 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Meridian ID, Aspen CO, Okemos MI
Posts: 2,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanBaier View Post
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. Dan
Dan, that is what I was thinking. Even putting the o-360 in the -9, you are still in the numbers for the drivers license medical proposal. I am counting on that!
__________________
rockwoodrv9a
Williamston MI
O-320 D2A
Awaiting DAR Inspection
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 07-23-2012, 05:25 PM
JordanGrant's Avatar
JordanGrant JordanGrant is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 324
Default Fits the mission of "touring machine" builders

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Scotsman View Post
So...more room, some additional range, 20% heavier and 35% more expensive, prop, avionics and interior not included in computations.

I wouldn't argue with Van's, but I wouldn't pay the extra money.
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). 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. 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.

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,
__________________
Jordan Grant
RV-6 N198G
Monthly donation started Mar '20
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:29 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.