|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

07-27-2012, 03:27 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gaspe, Qc
Posts: 139
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoRv
I must admit, the 14 release was underwhelming for me. I hoped for a ground breaking design. Something off the beaten path to celebrate 40 years.
|
I fell the exact same way. I think the 14 is great, but come on, why would you want 6-7 hours range in a recreationnal aircraft? You need a gooood bladder for that... Or you need to leave you wife home....
I don't see what the 14 will trully do better than the 6, 7 or 9...
I certainly was hopping for a high wing design too!!
|

07-27-2012, 05:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 4,435
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lockeed
....why would you want 6-7 hours range in a recreationnal aircraft?....
|
There's lots of places where there's no fuel for an hour or more each way. Sure would be nice to get there and have enough fuel to do some local flying before heading out for fuel....
Dave
|

07-27-2012, 05:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 1,505
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toobuilder
They have an excellent version in kit form already...
...It's called a Bearhawk.
|
For me it would be a Bearhawk Patrol built by Vans with the fuselage built in aluminum construction assembled similar to current design at Vans pricing. 160-180 HP.
__________________
Jim Wright
RV-9A N9JW 90919 SoldArkansas
http://www.jimsairplanes.com
_______________________
"It's a brutal struggle for the biscuit."
|

07-27-2012, 06:01 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bay Pines, FL (based @ KCLW)
Posts: 1,955
|
|
I agree & commented on the original 14 post that, "I didn't get it"
I too was looking for something special and not just a supersizing of the 7/9.
__________________
Danny "RoadRunner" Landry
Morphed RV7(formally 7A), N20DL, PnP Pilot
1190+ hours
2019 Donation Paid
|

07-27-2012, 06:23 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Redlands, Ca.
Posts: 1,458
|
|
What I Would like!!!!!
... I was somewhat disappointed as well, but I do like some of the changes, and wish my RV9-A could be retrofitted with some of them. I like the 2" or so wider cabin, (us real men need that), the main gear & the RV-10 nose gear, The extra fuel capacity is very nice when you want it as well. This plane was predicated and aimed at the cross country flight market but I feel they overlooked several changes that would have made this the quintessential, state of the art airplane for my purposes. Were I to add to the RV-14 what I would like, it would be as follows. I would like to have seen a beefed up version of the RV-9 wing with thicker skins and stronger spar with utility category numbers, as it is a far superior airfoil, in both slow and fast configurations over the RV-10. I think they should lengthen the fuselage, perhaps 36" or so with 24" to the rear and 12" in front just behind the firewall. It would have virtually no impact on speed, only adding a few pounds. This addition in the front could be a small baggage compartment like in the RV-8, that would also afford some extra pilot control over C/G and loading on cross country trips. The 24" addition to the fuselage in the rear would greatly improve the airplane as a instrument platform and cancel off most of the yaw issues in rough air in tern making it a more desirable cross country plane. My experience with the RVs I have flown, shows me they are not very good as an IFR platform. If the specs posted so far for the RV-14 are correct, (sporting 50 more HP and consuming 30% more fuel) I would also hope for more than a 5 or 6 mph in speed improvement for that fuel penalty. My RV-9 lands slower, lands shorter, takes off shorter, climbs as good or better, cruises at a comparable speed and does it on considerably less fuel. I don't get it? 
Thanks, Allan 
__________________
Allan Nimmo
AntiSplatAero.com
Innovative Aircraft Safety
Products, Tools & ServicesInfo@AntiSplatAero.com Southern California (KREI)
RV-9A / Edge-540 
(909) 824-1020
|

07-27-2012, 06:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: orwigsburg pa
Posts: 72
|
|
I was hoping for a tandem lsa taildragger or something cool, not same ole. Wouldnt mind a high wing either!
__________________
Pitts Special
S-2S
|

07-27-2012, 10:24 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Posts: 75
|
|
I too was hoping for something different, but more importantly I was hoping for some engineering. This is 3rd hand info but PLEASE tell me this is not true:
Quote from a Vans employee at Osh "The static margins on the two airplanes (RV-14 and RV-10) are very similar due to the wing design so there is no reason to load test to failure. That's old school engineering"
Again this is 3rd hand info so someone please tell me this statement is not true. How can one make that statement?
The RV-14 has different wing attachment dimensions, different chord, spars...etc. This makes no sense to me.
Ryan
__________________
Ryan Amendala
Hillsboro, OR
|

07-28-2012, 01:14 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,256
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigvince
... what's the difference between 160kts and 170kts?
|
10 knots.
Seriously...10 kts less for a not-insignificant amount more $ seems to be a step backwards.
I understand product line architectures and reuse, including everything from reusing requirements and designs, all the way through common parts and reuse of verification and validation activities, so from that standpoint, I guess it makes some sense. AND staying with core competencies is a good idea, usually.
But I was hoping for something other than an "RV-Portly". Seems like they started with a set of requirements based on increased pilot girth, found that to come close to the same numbers they had to use a bigger engine, etc.
Oh, well...guess my seaplane or amphibious aircraft will have to wait 
__________________
Steve "Flying Scotsman"
Santa Clarita, CA
PP-ASEL, ASES, Instrument Airplane
RV-7A N660WS flying!
#8,000
|

07-28-2012, 07:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dallas, TX (ADS)
Posts: 2,180
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lockeed
I fell the exact same way. I think the 14 is great, but come on, why would you want 6-7 hours range in a recreationnal aircraft? You need a gooood bladder for that... Or you need to leave you wife home.... 
|
I really enjoy having a 6 hour range.... allows lots of flexibility on cross country... stop for fuel when its cheap not because you need it. Its also handy when weather causes you to deviate from your intended route.
That said, I think the longest leg I've ever flown was about 5 hr hobbs.
TODR
__________________
Doug "The Other Doug Reeves" Reeves
CTSW N621CT - SOLD but not forgotten
Home Bases LBX, BZN
|

07-28-2012, 07:32 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 88
|
|
I think of it as extra useful load without full fuel.
- John
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:49 AM.
|